Up on slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/13/0356203
Referencing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ydorb/khobar-copyvio
On first glance, the claim appears valid; User Ydorb wrote the material in question before the book came out, there's a clear copying of the material, etc.
Ydorb says he's public-domained most of his contributions, but rightly points out that other WP contributors were involved in the apparently plagarized version, and that the WP GFDL sharing license would require attribution anyways.
Ydorb says he's public-domained most of his contributions, but rightly points out that other WP contributors were involved in the apparently plagarized version, and that the WP GFDL sharing license would require attribution anyways.
If you release your contributions in the public domain, there is no requirement to attribute it, whether it's also been released under GFDL or not, so I'm not sure what you mean by "anyways".
On 11/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Ydorb says he's public-domained most of his contributions, but rightly points out that other WP contributors were involved in the apparently plagarized version, and that the WP GFDL sharing license would require attribution anyways.
If you release your contributions in the public domain, there is no requirement to attribute it, whether it's also been released under GFDL or not, so I'm not sure what you mean by "anyways".
Plagiarism isn't affected by the licence or the law. It's an academic sin, not a legal one.
Steve
On 14/11/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Plagiarism isn't affected by the licence or the law. It's an academic sin, not a legal one.
True but those with an interest in preventing it rarely mention the different between copyright infringement and plagiarism something which tends to result in a certain degree of confusion.
On Nov 14, 2007 8:27 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Ydorb says he's public-domained most of his contributions, but rightly points out that other WP contributors were involved in the apparently plagarized version, and that the WP GFDL sharing license would require attribution anyways.
If you release your contributions in the public domain, there is no requirement to attribute it, whether it's also been released under GFDL or not, so I'm not sure what you mean by "anyways".
Plagiarism isn't affected by the licence or the law. It's an academic sin, not a legal one.
Depends on the jurisdiction. In many jurisdictions, plagiarism is illegal, even if the work is in the public domain. The right to attribution can exist outside of copyright law.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Plagiarism isn't affected by the licence or the law. It's an academic sin, not a legal one.
If the licence requires attribution, then not attributing is copyright violation. Whether you call it "plagiarism" or not is irrelevant.
It's not a copyright violation; it's a breach of contract.
Ec
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 10:42 -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Plagiarism isn't affected by the licence or the law. It's an academic sin, not a legal one.
If the licence requires attribution, then not attributing is copyright violation. Whether you call it "plagiarism" or not is irrelevant.
It's not a copyright violation; it's a breach of contract.
If the expert can't agree on this, I love how you two are both so definite on it. ;-)
KTC
On 14/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Plagiarism isn't affected by the licence or the law. It's an academic sin, not a legal one.
If the licence requires attribution, then not attributing is copyright violation. Whether you call it "plagiarism" or not is irrelevant.
It's not a copyright violation; it's a breach of contract.
You can't breach a contract you never agreed to. If you say you're using it under the license and do so incorrectly, then yes, it's breach of contract, but if you just use it without reference to the license (which is what we're talking about here, as far as I know), then the license doesn't apply and it's copyright violation.
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 20:24 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
You can't breach a contract you never agreed to. If you say you're using it under the license and do so incorrectly, then yes, it's breach of contract, but if you just use it without reference to the license (which is what we're talking about here, as far as I know), then the license doesn't apply and it's copyright violation.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/open_source_railroad/
On Nov 14, 2007 1:00 PM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/open_source_railroad/
Which to my understanding says that if you distribute an open source project you have in effect agreed to the license, which is a form of contract, and if you breach the license it is not copyright infringement but breach of contract.
This is definitely early days as far as getting legal precedent for open source licensing, but it's interesting.
-Matt
On 14/11/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007 1:00 PM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/open_source_railroad/
Which to my understanding says that if you distribute an open source project you have in effect agreed to the license, which is a form of contract, and if you breach the license it is not copyright infringement but breach of contract.
This is definitely early days as far as getting legal precedent for open source licensing, but it's interesting.
Yeah, that's my understanding as well. By that logic, if I go into Woolworths, pick up a Mars bar and walk out, it's not theft, it's breach of contract and the most they can do is send the bailiffs rounds to collect the 30p. If you can be bound by a contract without ever agreeing to it, then clearly the reasoning is flawed.
Matthew Brown schreef:
On Nov 14, 2007 1:00 PM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/open_source_railroad/
Which to my understanding says that if you distribute an open source project you have in effect agreed to the license, which is a form of contract, and if you breach the license it is not copyright infringement but breach of contract.
Note that according to the The Register story, this was about the Artistic License. You cannot generalise this to other open source licenses.
Clause 9 of the GFDL says: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. [...]"
So breaking the contract results in voiding the license agreement, which means that further distribution would be a copyright violation. The Artistic License lacks a similar clause.
This difference may well lead a judge to come to different conclusions on both licenses. But [[IANAL]] (IAAP).
Eugene
On 14/11/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 20:24 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
You can't breach a contract you never agreed to. If you say you're using it under the license and do so incorrectly, then yes, it's breach of contract, but if you just use it without reference to the license (which is what we're talking about here, as far as I know), then the license doesn't apply and it's copyright violation.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/open_source_railroad/
Well, I don't really trust the register to accurately report the details of the case, but from what they've said, I can't see how the judge's reasoning makes any sense at all. That article only seems to be addressing a preliminary injunction, rather than a full case, so it's far from a final decision.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 14/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Plagiarism isn't affected by the licence or the law. It's an academic sin, not a legal one.
If the licence requires attribution, then not attributing is copyright violation. Whether you call it "plagiarism" or not is irrelevant.
It's not a copyright violation; it's a breach of contract.
You can't breach a contract you never agreed to. If you say you're using it under the license and do so incorrectly, then yes, it's breach of contract, but if you just use it without reference to the license (which is what we're talking about here, as far as I know), then the license doesn't apply and it's copyright violation.
Arguing that you have not read the contract does not absolve you of its terms. With many licences simply availing oneself of their benefits includes an implicit agreement with the terms of the licence. This can be the case with shrinkwraped licences where if you break the seal, you agree to the licence.
Ec
Arguing that you have not read the contract does not absolve you of its terms. With many licences simply availing oneself of their benefits includes an implicit agreement with the terms of the licence. This can be the case with shrinkwraped licences where if you break the seal, you agree to the licence.
I didn't say "not read", I said "not agreed to". I seem to remember shrinkwrapped licenses were on shaky legal ground - did that issue ever get resolved in court?
On Nov 15, 2007 4:52 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Arguing that you have not read the contract does not absolve you of its terms.
Really? That seems strange. A contract requires a [[meeting of the minds]]. How can you have a meeting of the minds if one of the parties doesn't even know what she's agreed to?
You don't have to read every word, but surely one must understand the basic concept of what she's agreeing to in order to have a valid contract. Isn't that why so many contracts make you initial individual key paragraphs?
With many licences simply availing oneself of their benefits includes an implicit agreement with the terms of the licence. This can be the case with shrinkwraped licences where if you break the seal, you agree to the licence.
AFAIK that POV has never held up in court. AFAIK the only time something remotely close has held up was when a purchase was made directly from the manufacturer, and no seal was ever broken. The theory was that the contract was formed *at the time of sale*, and not at the time the software was taken out of any shrinkwrap.
Whenever I get software with a shrinkwrapped license I always cut the back of the envelope and leave the seal intact. Does this mean I'm less bound by the contract than someone who "breaks the seal"?
I'm afraid you're going to need another citation for this claim about shrinkwrapped licenses. "The legal status of shrink wrap contracts in the US is somewhat unclear." [[Shrink wrap contract]] doesn't mention anything about non-US jurisdictions.
On 13/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Up on slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/13/0356203
Referencing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ydorb/khobar-copyvio
On first glance, the claim appears valid; User Ydorb wrote the material in question before the book came out, there's a clear copying of the material, etc.
Ydorb says he's public-domained most of his contributions, but rightly points out that other WP contributors were involved in the apparently plagarized version, and that the WP GFDL sharing license would require attribution anyways.
A users contributions may be PD, but the article is GFDL and the passage is GFDL (based on the fact that other users edited it prior to the copy who didn't release their contributions into the PD).
I'm not sure the legality of the copy is the main issue. Did the writer at least reference the Wikipedia article or it's editors?
On Nov 13, 2007 12:03 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Up on slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/13/0356203
Referencing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ydorb/khobar-copyvio
On first glance, the claim appears valid; User Ydorb wrote the material
in
question before the book came out, there's a clear copying of the
material,
etc.
Ydorb says he's public-domained most of his contributions, but rightly points out that other WP contributors were involved in the apparently plagarized version, and that the WP GFDL sharing license would require attribution anyways.
A users contributions may be PD, but the article is GFDL and the passage is GFDL (based on the fact that other users edited it prior to the copy who didn't release their contributions into the PD).
I'm not sure the legality of the copy is the main issue. Did the writer at least reference the Wikipedia article or it's editors?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
There's no sign that I can find, but that's with searching the Amazon online exerpts.
I don't have the full book to doublecheck what its references listing was.