Wikigadugi is listed here at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance
as
" ...Either more research is needed, or it is disputed Fail in a very significant way such as claiming their own copyright without including a GFDL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL notice ..."
Pardon me folks, but if someone feels we are not in compliance with the GFDL, can please someone point out where this is the case? All of our content is GFDL compliant and we do not offer any license other than the GFDL and post the GFDL to our site.
I am happy to address and correct any issues with use of the Foundations content if anyone feels it is not adequately spelled out as GFDL.
Jeff
There are a few problems with the site currently. In order to be in compliance, you must also credit Wikipedia as your source. I'm clicking "random page" and not seeing any articles that do this. They are just direct copies with no reference to Wikipedia. You should have a note, perhaps at the bottom of the page, like:
This article is licensed under the <a href="gfdl.html"> GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a> article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo"> "Foo"</a>.
Also, your content does not appear to be licensed under the GFDL; it says on each page: "Content is available under Wikigadugi Public License http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php/License." And the link to that license is broken. Your disclaimer and about pages linked at the bottom are also blank, so I'm not sure where the GFDL is posted to your site.
In order to comply: You must link to a local copy of the GFDL, you must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license, your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL, you must credit Wikipedia and link back to the source article. We also recommend that you include the date of the version copied, so that one is able to clearly figure out the authors by checking the history tab (it will likely have changed since you copied the content, and the authorship will have changed, too).
Dominic
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Wikigadugi is listed here at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance
as
" ...Either more research is needed, or it is disputed Fail in a very significant way such as claiming their own copyright without including a GFDL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL notice ..."
Pardon me folks, but if someone feels we are not in compliance with the GFDL, can please someone point out where this is the case? All of our content is GFDL compliant and we do not offer any license other than the GFDL and post the GFDL to our site.
I am happy to address and correct any issues with use of the Foundations content if anyone feels it is not adequately spelled out as GFDL.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
In order to comply: You must link to a local copy of the GFDL, you must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license, your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL, you must credit Wikipedia and link back to the source article. We also recommend that you include the date of the version copied, so that one is able to clearly figure out the authors by checking the history tab (it will likely have changed since you copied the content, and the authorship will have changed, too).
Dominic
While I would agree that a "local copy" is a good idea, it is not in a very strict sense necessary. All that is necessary is to have a copy that is accessable through the network you are using, somehow. Having a local copy means that it is accessable at the same time the rest of the site is up/down.
As for the requirement to have the content link to the original source article, that is not necessary either. It may be a good idea, but it is not required by the GFDL, nor a legal requirement. All that is necessary is that you credit five authors of the text, presumably the five "leading contributors". It isn't clear exactly which five, or if random vandals on the history page qualify, or what edits done that are credited only to an IP address really mean, but only five are strictly needed. The metric for determining the five "leading contributors" is certainly a very grey area in terms of what the GFDL asks you for here. Edit count is hardly the best metric for many reasons.
All of the other requirements are completely made up here and are not needed by the GFDL. If this is something the Wikipedia community wants to put into here, they ought to change the license that Wikipedia is licensed under. Good luck on trying to do that. That would mean restarting Wikipedia from scratch, essentially.
I'm not suggesting that these are bad recommendations in terms of being nice to Wikipedia and helping to grow Wikimedia projects, but be very clear that this is what you are saying and not that these are legal requirements that are strictly necessary to copy the content, or even republish it in the form of another website. While "good advise" in terms of being nice, this is awful legal advise on the whole.
On 1/21/07, Dominic McDevitt-Parks dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
There are a few problems with the site currently. In order to be in compliance, you must also credit Wikipedia as your source
Please read the GFDL before makeing comments like this.
. I'm clicking "random page" and not seeing any articles that do this. They are just direct copies with no reference to Wikipedia. You should have a note, perhaps at the bottom of the page, like:
This article is licensed under the <a href="gfdl.html"> GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a> article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo"> "Foo"</a>.
This is painfully wrong.
geni wrote:
On 1/21/07, Dominic McDevitt-Parks dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
There are a few problems with the site currently. In order to be in compliance, you must also credit Wikipedia as your source
Please read the GFDL before makeing comments like this.
. I'm clicking "random page" and not seeing any articles that do this. They are just direct copies with no reference to Wikipedia. You should have a note, perhaps at the bottom of the page, like:
This article is licensed under the <a href="gfdl.html"> GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a> article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo"> "Foo"</a>.
This is painfully wrong.
This is a copy-and-paste from Wikipedia's own information pages on the matter. I won't claim to be the expert here. Perhaps you could fix them then, or maybe even *say* what the problem is?
Dominic
On 1/21/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
This is a copy-and-paste from Wikipedia's own information pages on the matter. I won't claim to be the expert here. Perhaps you could fix them then, or maybe even *say* what the problem is?
The problem in short is that neither wikipedia or the foundation are significant copyright holders. Thus there is not normaly a need to credit them. The people who need to be credited are the authors. In the case of the pictures I mentioned that would be me. Legaly I could file a DMCA takdown notice over those pics (well once I figured out which legal system applied). The foundation couldn't.
The GFDL requires the author be credited not a publisher.
OK Dominic, lt's g through it. Couple of points I must make first.
1. I do not ever use Wikipedia logos, trademarks, or other materials as these violate US Trademark laws. I don't care if Wikipedia says "Please link back to us with attribution", it is irrelevant. I have received no permission from the foundation to use its trademarks in such a way. Whether or not the Wikipedia community says this is ok and should be done for GFDL compliance, the FOUNDATION has given no such consent to anyone, and any sites doing it are subject to legal action from the Foundation. The Wikipedia Community has **NO** authority to release third party sites from claims and causes of action from the Foundation for trademark misuse, on the **FOUNDATION** has such authority. Before I post any attribution back to the Foundation (which would make the foundationliable for the content) I need the Foundation to grat permission for use of its trademarks in this manner.
2. http://en.wikigadugi.org/wiki/WikiGadugi:About points to the GFDL. This statement is apprently not accurate.
3. The date the articles were uploaded and the last author is already listed in kanohesdi (history) for each article, so this statement is inaccurate.
I request persmission from the Foundation to use its trademarks solely for the purpose attribution as required by the GFDL. Email of such consent to this list is acceptable as a reply to this email. The foundation must release WMG and Wikigadugi from any and all liability, claims, and causes of action for the use of its trademarks and names SOLELY for the purpose of GFDL compliance. I ca find no page on the wikimedia.org site that grants such a release. I will not use or misuse Foundation trademarks without such permission.
Jeff
Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
There are a few problems with the site currently. In order to be in compliance, you must also credit Wikipedia as your source. I'm clicking "random page" and not seeing any articles that do this. They are just direct copies with no reference to Wikipedia. You should have a note, perhaps at the bottom of the page, like:
This article is licensed under the <a href="gfdl.html"> GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a> article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo"> "Foo"</a>.
Also, your content does not appear to be licensed under the GFDL; it says on each page: "Content is available under Wikigadugi Public License http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php/License." And the link to that license is broken. Your disclaimer and about pages linked at the bottom are also blank, so I'm not sure where the GFDL is posted to your site.
In order to comply: You must link to a local copy of the GFDL, you must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license, your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL, you must credit Wikipedia and link back to the source article.
We also recommend that you include the date of the version copied, so that one is able to clearly figure out the authors by checking the history tab (it will likely have changed since you copied the content, and the authorship will have changed, too).
Dominic
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Wikigadugi is listed here at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance
as
" ...Either more research is needed, or it is disputed Fail in a very significant way such as claiming their own copyright without including a GFDL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL notice ..."
Pardon me folks, but if someone feels we are not in compliance with the GFDL, can please someone point out where this is the case? All of our content is GFDL compliant and we do not offer any license other than the GFDL and post the GFDL to our site.
I am happy to address and correct any issues with use of the Foundations content if anyone feels it is not adequately spelled out as GFDL.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
I request persmission from the Foundation to use its trademarks solely for the purpose attribution as required by the GFDL. Email of such consent to this list is acceptable as a reply to this email. The foundation must release WMG and Wikigadugi from any and all liability, claims, and causes of action for the use of its trademarks and names SOLELY for the purpose of GFDL compliance. I ca find no page on the wikimedia.org site that grants such a release. I will not use or misuse Foundation trademarks without such permission.
Jeff
I'll defer here to Brad in terms of strict legal requirements, but I fail to see how it is a violation and abuse of trademarks to cite Wikipedia as the source of the material, in a bibliographic reference. Or that you even need permission to do this sort of citation. Indeed, I would think it to be a violation of the GFDL on the part of the WMF to even require permission in this manner, as it would then be legally impossible to comply with the GFDL when giving this content to a 3rd party.
You should not have to seek permission from the WMF or anybody on Wikipedia in order to copy content from Wikipedia. That is the whole point of the GFDL.
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
I request persmission from the Foundation to use its trademarks solely for the purpose attribution as required by the GFDL. Email of such consent to this list is acceptable as a reply to this email. The foundation must release WMG and Wikigadugi from any and all liability, claims, and causes of action for the use of its trademarks and names SOLELY for the purpose of GFDL compliance. I ca find no page on the wikimedia.org site that grants such a release. I will not use or misuse Foundation trademarks without such permission.
Jeff
I'll defer here to Brad in terms of strict legal requirements, but I fail to see how it is a violation and abuse of trademarks to cite Wikipedia as the source of the material, in a bibliographic reference. Or that you even need permission to do this sort of citation. Indeed, I would think it to be a violation of the GFDL on the part of the WMF to even require permission in this manner, as it would then be legally impossible to comply with the GFDL when giving this content to a 3rd party.
You should not have to seek permission from the WMF or anybody on Wikipedia in order to copy content from Wikipedia. That is the whole point of the GFDL.
It could potentially be trademark infrginement and trading on the goodwill of the foundation in certain situations. In any event, companies are not about civil disobediance. WMG needs permission or implied pemission in the form of a statement by he Foundation that use if its valuable trademark rights is granted for purposes of attribution through the use of its trademarks.
Apolicy page on wikimedia.org would probably address any issues on this topic.
Jeff
On 1/21/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
It could potentially be trademark infrginement and trading on the goodwill of the foundation in certain situations. In any event, companies are not about civil disobediance. WMG needs permission or implied pemission in the form of a statement by he Foundation that use if its valuable trademark rights is granted for purposes of attribution through the use of its trademarks.
You don't need them for attribution.
geni wrote:
On 1/21/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
It could potentially be trademark infrginement and trading on the goodwill of the foundation in certain situations. In any event, companies are not about civil disobediance. WMG needs permission or implied pemission in the form of a statement by he Foundation that use if its valuable trademark rights is granted for purposes of attribution through the use of its trademarks.
You don't need them for attribution.
Unfortunately, I do.
Jeff
On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Unfortunately, I do.
How do you need the foundation's logos to credit me?
geni wrote:
On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Unfortunately, I do.
How do you need the foundation's logos to credit me?
Under the GFDL you give consent to relicense your changes. This means whomever is the last editor of an article is the "Author", not the whole chain of editors to that point since subsequent editors are simply relicening your content when they add their own edits. By editing and saving the article, the final editor is the author in this sense.
The GFDL and Wikipedia's posted policies state that Wikipedia must be given attrbution to comply with the GFDL. Your website is then listed in the "Mirrors and Forks" as a BAD WEBSITE if you do not. Wikipedia cannot give consent to use "Wikipedia" since it does not own the trademark, the foundation does.
Jeff
On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Under the GFDL you give consent to relicense your changes. This means whomever is the last editor of an article is the "Author", not the whole chain of editors to that point since subsequent editors are simply relicening your content when they add their own edits. By editing and saving the article, the final editor is the author in this sense.
Please re-read the GFDL: 4.
B List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
I do not release you from this requirement.
The GFDL and Wikipedia's posted policies state that Wikipedia must be given attrbution to comply with the GFDL.
That isn't the case. see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obli...
Your website is then listed in the "Mirrors and Forks" as a BAD WEBSITE if you do not.
There are a number of ways of following the GFDL. Which one you chose it up to you. IF you think you can't mention wikipedia to give credit then you must give credit localy.
Wikipedia cannot give consent to use "Wikipedia" since it does not own the trademark, the foundation does.
I would be rather impressed if the foundation managed to win a legal case against someone useing thier name to say where the text was taken from.
geni wrote:
On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Under the GFDL you give consent to relicense your changes. This means whomever is the last editor of an article is the "Author", not the whole chain of editors to that point since subsequent editors are simply relicening your content when they add their own edits. By editing and saving the article, the final editor is the author in this sense.
Please re-read the GFDL: 4.
B List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
I do not release you from this requirement.
Then Wikipedia in its dumps must IDENTIFY AT LEAST FIVE AUTHORS AUTHORS since I have no crystal ball as to who wrote what. In this case, Wikimedia is violating the GFDL by failing to publish authors along with content.
The GFDL and Wikipedia's posted policies state that Wikipedia must be given attrbution to comply with the GFDL.
That isn't the case. see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obli...
Your website is then listed in the "Mirrors and Forks" as a BAD WEBSITE if you do not.
There are a number of ways of following the GFDL. Which one you chose it up to you. IF you think you can't mention wikipedia to give credit then you must give credit localy.
Wikipedia cannot give consent to use "Wikipedia" since it does not own the trademark, the foundation does.
I would be rather impressed if the foundation managed to win a legal case against someone useing thier name to say where the text was taken from.
No progress I see here ...
Jeff
On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Then Wikipedia in its dumps must IDENTIFY AT LEAST FIVE AUTHORS AUTHORS since I have no crystal ball as to who wrote what.
This is why most people link back to the article on wikipedia or to the article's history on wikipedia.
In this case, Wikimedia is violating the GFDL by failing to publish authors along with content.
I suspect that can be found in:
stub-meta-history.xml.gz
geni wrote:
On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Then Wikipedia in its dumps must IDENTIFY AT LEAST FIVE AUTHORS AUTHORS since I have no crystal ball as to who wrote what.
This is why most people link back to the article on wikipedia or to the article's history on wikipedia.
In this case, Wikimedia is violating the GFDL by failing to publish authors along with content.
I suspect that can be found in:
stub-meta-history.xml.gz
ok then. I'll post an en: link back to wikipedia for each article by writing a program that will tag the xml for each article and create the en: link.
What else is required to get wikigadugi of the BAD WEBSITES list.
Jeff
On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Then Wikipedia in its dumps must IDENTIFY AT LEAST FIVE AUTHORS AUTHORS since I have no crystal ball as to who wrote what.
This is why most people link back to the article on wikipedia or to the article's history on wikipedia.
In this case, Wikimedia is violating the GFDL by failing to publish authors along with content.
I suspect that can be found in:
stub-meta-history.xml.gz
ok then. I'll post an en: link back to wikipedia for each article by writing a program that will tag the xml for each article and create the en: link.
What else is required to get wikigadugi of the BAD WEBSITES list.
Jeff
Need to make sure that all images correctly state their copyright status (you appear to have lost some GFDL tags and the like somewhere) and need include a more prominent link to the GFDL.
geni wrote:
On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Then Wikipedia in its dumps must IDENTIFY AT LEAST FIVE AUTHORS AUTHORS since I have no crystal ball as to who wrote what.
This is why most people link back to the article on wikipedia or to the article's history on wikipedia.
In this case, Wikimedia is violating the GFDL by failing to publish authors along with content.
I suspect that can be found in:
stub-meta-history.xml.gz
ok then. I'll post an en: link back to wikipedia for each article by writing a program that will tag the xml for each article and create the en: link.
What else is required to get wikigadugi of the BAD WEBSITES list.
Jeff
Need to make sure that all images correctly state their copyright status (you appear to have lost some GFDL tags and the like somewhere) and need include a more prominent link to the GFDL.
ok. I will try to get this all dne this week. after I do this, please remove wikigadugi from the BAD WEBSITES list.
Thanks
Jeff
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
geni wrote:
On 1/22/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Under the GFDL you give consent to relicense your changes. This means whomever is the last editor of an article is the "Author", not the whole chain of editors to that point since subsequent editors are simply relicening your content when they add their own edits. By editing and saving the article, the final editor is the author in this sense.
Please re-read the GFDL: 4.
B List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
I do not release you from this requirement.
Then Wikipedia in its dumps must IDENTIFY AT LEAST FIVE AUTHORS AUTHORS since I have no crystal ball as to who wrote what. In this case, Wikimedia is violating the GFDL by failing to publish authors along with content.
At least in theory, all MediaWiki content pages have a "diff" function that would be able to identify in some way the authorship of each and every word of every article. I'm not saying this is a computationally trivial task (far from it), but the raw information needed to calculate that is provided in the MediaWiki databases. IMHO this is a far better metric to identify who the "five principle authors" of a given page might be, at least going off of word count as a metric. This would remove edits by blatant vandals and other cruft, as well as administrative actions such as adding and removing AfD/VfD notes and other cleanup tags.
Another alternative, and easier to do computationally, is to count page edits.
BTW, as a general note for Wikipedia, the "static version" of Wikipedia pages does list in plain text all of the contributors to each page. See for example:
http://static.wikipedia.org/wikipedia/en/index.html
Which lists every author who has touched this page, including in this particular case our fearless leader/founder Jimbo, and several regulars to this mailing list. I actually like how this is done from an asthetic viewpoint, but it would be difficult to display this information on a dynamic/editable page.
From a technical viewpoint, compiling this list of authors is hardly an easy task if you are trying to republish the content, but the required information is there if you are willing to go through the effort.
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I'll defer here to Brad in terms of strict legal requirements, but I fail to see how it is a violation and abuse of trademarks to cite Wikipedia as the source of the material, in a bibliographic reference. Or that you even need permission to do this sort of citation. Indeed, I would think it to be a violation of the GFDL on the part of the WMF to even require permission in this manner, as it would then be legally impossible to comply with the GFDL when giving this content to a 3rd party.
You should not have to seek permission from the WMF or anybody on Wikipedia in order to copy content from Wikipedia. That is the whole point of the GFDL.
It could potentially be trademark infrginement and trading on the goodwill of the foundation in certain situations. In any event, companies are not about civil disobediance. WMG needs permission or implied pemission in the form of a statement by he Foundation that use if its valuable trademark rights is granted for purposes of attribution through the use of its trademarks.
Apolicy page on wikimedia.org would probably address any issues on this topic.
Jeff
Note that what I said here was a bibliographic reference to Wikipedia.
Where the trademark infringement comes from is something like the sorts of publications done by Wikipress (see http://www.wikipress.de/Hauptseite) These have the words "Wikipedia" spelled out boldly on the title page, implying some sort of strong connection to Wikipedia. These are IMHO uses of WMF trademarks that perhaps ought to be used with formal permission.
If instead you have inside the "many thanks to" page of a published book a mention of Wikipedia and noting that the information came from there, I don't see where the problem comes here. Or better still if you list on a formal bibliographic reference list of where the content came from, having Wikipedia listed near the top of the list in perhaps even a featured position on the list as a major source of the information. That shouldn't be a problem. I hope the WMF doesn't take issue when WMF trademarks are used in this fashion. For a web site something either on a special "About" page or as a "fine print" at the bottom of the page noting that the content came from Wikipedia originally would IMHO be essentially the same thing.
An infringing use would be to completely reproduce a Wikipedia page, completely with the "meatball" logo and be designed to look identical in all other ways to Wikipedia pages, making no distinction between Wikipedia and your copy. Unfortunately some people have done exactly this, even with very similar URLs that are very similar to Wikipedia, but with all kinds of advertisement all over all of the pages.
What is interesting in the GFDL is that there is a "title clause" that actually *requires* the use of the title in the publication that is republished via permissions granted through the GFDL. How exactly this relates to Wikipedia is very vague, and statements by the WMF have muddied the waters even more in an attempt to try and protect the WMF trademarks.
As I've noted, the name "Linux" is also trademarked in a fashion that presumably "Wikipedia" is also intended to be used. The one huge difference here, however, is that the WMF is trying to capitalize on the use of the term "Wikipedia" for fund raising activities, while Linus Torvald doesn't seem to care all that much, and is mainly holding the trademark to keep it from being claimed by some other 3rd party. I guarentee that many people are using the term "Linux" without even consulting or talking with Linus.
From an ethical standpoint, it seems very responsible to note clearly where the original source of the material came from. And the only reasonable way you can do that is to use a WMF trademark such as "Wikipedia", even if the name appears only in the URL.
The issue about seeking permission from the WMF in order to do bibliographic reference is that by requiring premission, it invalidates the GFDL. The content reverts to a strong propritary copyright, which simply can't be copied unless you have formal permission from all of the authors of that content. On the pratical side, it makes it impossible to reproduce the content at all. Presumably it could also get the WMF into problems as the content was given to the WMF (on their server farms) under the terms of the GFDL, so it couldn't even be displayed at all unless the WMF also has independent authorization (aside from the GFDL) to publish the content.
As a note to this request, I do not play the "Fair Use" game with regard to the use of IP of third parties. I will NOT be using Foundation trademarks without their permission. I realize the Wikipedia Community operates this way, WE DO NOT. I need a release before I will post attribution back to Wikipedia through the use of its trademarks without the Foundations consent.
Thanks
Jeff
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
OK Dominic, lt's g through it. Couple of points I must make first.
- I do not ever use Wikipedia logos, trademarks, or other materials as
these violate US Trademark laws. I don't care if Wikipedia says "Please link back to us with attribution", it is irrelevant. I have received no permission from the foundation to use its trademarks in such a way. Whether or not the Wikipedia community says this is ok and should be done for GFDL compliance, the FOUNDATION has given no such consent to anyone, and any sites doing it are subject to legal action from the Foundation. The Wikipedia Community has **NO** authority to release third party sites from claims and causes of action from the Foundation for trademark misuse, on the **FOUNDATION** has such authority. Before I post any attribution back to the Foundation (which would make the foundationliable for the content) I need the Foundation to grat permission for use of its trademarks in this manner.
- http://en.wikigadugi.org/wiki/WikiGadugi:About points to the GFDL.
This statement is apprently not accurate.
- The date the articles were uploaded and the last author is already
listed in kanohesdi (history) for each article, so this statement is inaccurate.
I request persmission from the Foundation to use its trademarks solely for the purpose attribution as required by the GFDL. Email of such consent to this list is acceptable as a reply to this email. The foundation must release WMG and Wikigadugi from any and all liability, claims, and causes of action for the use of its trademarks and names SOLELY for the purpose of GFDL compliance. I ca find no page on the wikimedia.org site that grants such a release. I will not use or misuse Foundation trademarks without such permission.
Jeff
Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
There are a few problems with the site currently. In order to be in compliance, you must also credit Wikipedia as your source. I'm clicking "random page" and not seeing any articles that do this. They are just direct copies with no reference to Wikipedia. You should have a note, perhaps at the bottom of the page, like:
This article is licensed under the <a href="gfdl.html"> GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a> article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo"> "Foo"</a>.
Also, your content does not appear to be licensed under the GFDL; it says on each page: "Content is available under Wikigadugi Public License http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php/License." And the link to that license is broken. Your disclaimer and about pages linked at the bottom are also blank, so I'm not sure where the GFDL is posted to your site.
In order to comply: You must link to a local copy of the GFDL, you must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license, your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL, you must credit Wikipedia and link back to the source article.
We also recommend that you include the date of the version copied, so that one is able to clearly figure out the authors by checking the history tab (it will likely have changed since you copied the content, and the authorship will have changed, too).
Dominic
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Wikigadugi is listed here at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance
as
" ...Either more research is needed, or it is disputed Fail in a very significant way such as claiming their own copyright without including a GFDL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL notice ..."
Pardon me folks, but if someone feels we are not in compliance with the GFDL, can please someone point out where this is the case? All of our content is GFDL compliant and we do not offer any license other than the GFDL and post the GFDL to our site.
I am happy to address and correct any issues with use of the Foundations content if anyone feels it is not adequately spelled out as GFDL.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, It seems to me that your have a formal problem that requires a formal response. Am I correct that you require the Wikimedia Foundation to express publicly that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts the use of Wikipedia TM to links back to the original Wikipedia content in order to comply with the requirements of the GPL?
If this is what is required, it seems to me that the WMF needs to decide if it can make a blanket pronouncement allowing this specific use of the Wikipedia TM, Wiktionary TM WikiEtc TM.
Thanks, GerardM
Jeffrey V. Merkey schreef:
OK Dominic, lt's g through it. Couple of points I must make first.
- I do not ever use Wikipedia logos, trademarks, or other materials as
these violate US Trademark laws. I don't care if Wikipedia says "Please link back to us with attribution", it is irrelevant. I have received no permission from the foundation to use its trademarks in such a way. Whether or not the Wikipedia community says this is ok and should be done for GFDL compliance, the FOUNDATION has given no such consent to anyone, and any sites doing it are subject to legal action from the Foundation. The Wikipedia Community has **NO** authority to release third party sites from claims and causes of action from the Foundation for trademark misuse, on the **FOUNDATION** has such authority. Before I post any attribution back to the Foundation (which would make the foundationliable for the content) I need the Foundation to grat permission for use of its trademarks in this manner.
- http://en.wikigadugi.org/wiki/WikiGadugi:About points to the GFDL.
This statement is apprently not accurate.
- The date the articles were uploaded and the last author is already
listed in kanohesdi (history) for each article, so this statement is inaccurate.
I request persmission from the Foundation to use its trademarks solely for the purpose attribution as required by the GFDL. Email of such consent to this list is acceptable as a reply to this email. The foundation must release WMG and Wikigadugi from any and all liability, claims, and causes of action for the use of its trademarks and names SOLELY for the purpose of GFDL compliance. I ca find no page on the wikimedia.org site that grants such a release. I will not use or misuse Foundation trademarks without such permission.
Jeff
Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
There are a few problems with the site currently. In order to be in compliance, you must also credit Wikipedia as your source. I'm clicking "random page" and not seeing any articles that do this. They are just direct copies with no reference to Wikipedia. You should have a note, perhaps at the bottom of the page, like:
This article is licensed under the <a href="gfdl.html"> GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a> article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo"> "Foo"</a>.
Also, your content does not appear to be licensed under the GFDL; it says on each page: "Content is available under Wikigadugi Public License http://www.wikigadugi.org/index.php/License." And the link to that license is broken. Your disclaimer and about pages linked at the bottom are also blank, so I'm not sure where the GFDL is posted to your site.
In order to comply: You must link to a local copy of the GFDL, you must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license, your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL, you must credit Wikipedia and link back to the source article.
We also recommend that you include the date of the version copied, so that one is able to clearly figure out the authors by checking the history tab (it will likely have changed since you copied the content, and the authorship will have changed, too).
Dominic
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Wikigadugi is listed here at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance
as
" ...Either more research is needed, or it is disputed Fail in a very significant way such as claiming their own copyright without including a GFDL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL notice ..."
Pardon me folks, but if someone feels we are not in compliance with the GFDL, can please someone point out where this is the case? All of our content is GFDL compliant and we do not offer any license other than the GFDL and post the GFDL to our site.
I am happy to address and correct any issues with use of the Foundations content if anyone feels it is not adequately spelled out as GFDL.
Jeff
On 1/21/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It seems to me that your have a formal problem that requires a formal response.
He's got one. I'm a major copyright holder on the article I linked to.
Am I correct that you require the Wikimedia Foundation to express publicly that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts the use of Wikipedia TM to links back to the original Wikipedia content in order to comply with the requirements of the GPL?
There are other ways of staying within the GFDL.
On 1/21/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Pardon me folks, but if someone feels we are not in compliance with the GFDL, can please someone point out where this is the case? All of our content is GFDL compliant and we do not offer any license other than the GFDL and post the GFDL to our site.
I am happy to address and correct any issues with use of the Foundations content if anyone feels it is not adequately spelled out as GFDL.
Jeff
It isn't the foundation's content. Lets look at an example shall we:
http://en.wikigadugi.org/wiki/Rolle_Canal
First there is no direct link to a copy of the GFDL that I can find which is less than ideal
Now you list 3 authors in the history tab : Mervyn geni Rosser1954
Problem is that list isn't complete list of the authors or even 5 major authors.
If we look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolle_Canal&action=history
There are more than three authors
Now you could either fix this by hosting the full history of the article localy or linking to the wikipedia history. Your choice.
Now we move onto the images:
Image:Rolle canal lock.JPG
You have correctly stated that the work is under the GFDL but have failed to credit the author (in this case geni).
It gets even worse if we look at other images such as:
Image:Wilts and Berks Canal link to Thames.JPG
which fails to mention the GFDL or the author.
So in short you need to fix your author crediting and links to the GFDL
I see you redirected Project:About to http://en.wikigadugi.org/wiki/GFDL.
That page is not what was meant. You need the *verbatim text of the GFDL*, which can be found at Wikipedia:Text of the GFDL.
On 1/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/21/07, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Pardon me folks, but if someone feels we are not in compliance with the GFDL, can please someone point out where this is the case? All of our content is GFDL compliant and we do not offer any license other than the GFDL and post the GFDL to our site.
I am happy to address and correct any issues with use of the Foundations content if anyone feels it is not adequately spelled out as GFDL.
Jeff
It isn't the foundation's content. Lets look at an example shall we:
http://en.wikigadugi.org/wiki/Rolle_Canal
First there is no direct link to a copy of the GFDL that I can find which is less than ideal
Now you list 3 authors in the history tab : Mervyn geni Rosser1954
Problem is that list isn't complete list of the authors or even 5 major authors.
If we look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolle_Canal&action=history
There are more than three authors
Now you could either fix this by hosting the full history of the article localy or linking to the wikipedia history. Your choice.
Now we move onto the images:
Image:Rolle canal lock.JPG
You have correctly stated that the work is under the GFDL but have failed to credit the author (in this case geni).
It gets even worse if we look at other images such as:
Image:Wilts and Berks Canal link to Thames.JPG
which fails to mention the GFDL or the author.
So in short you need to fix your author crediting and links to the GFDL
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org