Plagiarism does have something to do with the law if it is a breach of copyright. I assume that the banned editor is hostile, so being defensive may be prudent.
The key points are that the GDFL allows derivative use of the text provided it is correctly attributed. The use described is not derivative and changes the attribution - this contravenes the GDFL.
With respect, Steven
/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenZenith/
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:33:52 -0500 From: Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: 3bd63d170602151433j3ee83e6flc3bf99079b655ea9@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 2/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Plagiarism has nothing to do with law,
True, but the original poster also claimed it was a copyright issue, which would make it something of a legal matter. I simply forgot to completely repeat his point.
On 2/16/06, Steven Ericsson Zenith steven@semeiosis.com wrote:
Plagiarism does have something to do with the law if it is a breach of copyright. I assume that the banned editor is hostile, so being defensive may be prudent.
The key points are that the GDFL allows derivative use of the text provided it is correctly attributed. The use described is not derivative and changes the attribution - this contravenes the GDFL.
With respect, Steven
Attribution still exists in the acticle history and rember if enough enough people have edited the article we don't have to provide attribution for all of them. -- geni
On 2/16/06, Steven Ericsson Zenith steven@semeiosis.com wrote:
Plagiarism does have something to do with the law if it is a breach of copyright. I assume that the banned editor is hostile, so being defensive may be prudent.
Copyright is copyright, plagiarism is plagiarism. Copying a single sentence from a large work without attribution is plagiarism, but not copyright violation. Reproducing a famous photo in high resolution with attribution but not permission is copyright violation, but not plagiarism.
Steve
Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
"Copyright is copyright, plagiarism is plagiarism. Copying a single sentence from a large work without attribution is plagiarism..."
Jon replies:
No it isn't.
Jon
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo.
Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
"Copyright is copyright, plagiarism is plagiarism. Copying a single sentence from a large work without attribution is plagiarism..."
Phil replies:
No it isn't.
Phil