In a message dated 12/9/2010 11:06:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
Google does it, archive.org (wayback machine) does it, we can copy them for caching and searching i assume. we are not changing the license, but just preventing the information from disappearing on us. >>
You are thinking of refs which are out-of-copyright. Google books only gives snippet views of some books still under copyright for which they've not gotten permission to show an entire page at a time (which is preview mode).
archive.org as well has copies of works out-of-copyright (or otherwise in the public domain)
Your original statement was that we should copy refs. Many or most of our refs are under copyright still. We would not be able to do what you suggest imho.
W
i mean google has copies, caches of items for searching. How can google cache this? Archive.org has copyrighted materials as well. We should be able to save backups of this material as well. mike
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:16 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/9/2010 11:06:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
Google does it, archive.org (wayback machine) does it, we can copy them for caching and searching i assume. we are not changing the license, but just preventing the information from disappearing on us. >>
You are thinking of refs which are out-of-copyright. Google books only gives snippet views of some books still under copyright for which they've not gotten permission to show an entire page at a time (which is preview mode).
archive.org as well has copies of works out-of-copyright (or otherwise in the public domain)
Your original statement was that we should copy refs. Many or most of our refs are under copyright still. We would not be able to do what you suggest imho.
W _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org