I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind to the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia policy on adaptive reuse of Wikipedia content into non-free publications?
E.g. Graphiq https://www.graphiq.com/terms-and-conditions http://colleges.startclass.com/l/1929/Harvard-University
and Google https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+university
I recognize that Google gives Wikimedia a lot of money, even if the foundation isn't very transparent about that, but I'd think that doesn't free the company from following CC BY-SA.
Well "fair use" applies, but if the amount of content used goes beyond fair use than it needs to be indicated that the content is under an open license.
J
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind to the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia policy on adaptive reuse of Wikipedia content into non-free publications?
E.g. Graphiq https://www.graphiq.com/terms-and-conditions http://colleges.startclass.com/l/1929/Harvard-University
and Google https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+university
I recognize that Google gives Wikimedia a lot of money, even if the foundation isn't very transparent about that, but I'd think that doesn't free the company from following CC BY-SA. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia corpus for their results.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:40 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Well "fair use" applies, but if the amount of content used goes beyond fair use than it needs to be indicated that the content is under an open license.
J
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind to the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia policy on adaptive reuse of
Wikipedia
content into non-free publications?
E.g. Graphiq https://www.graphiq.com/terms-and-conditions http://colleges.startclass.com/l/1929/Harvard-University
and Google https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+university
I recognize that Google gives Wikimedia a lot of money, even if the foundation isn't very transparent about that, but I'd think that doesn't free the company from following CC BY-SA. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Yes, probably and in the process they do exactly what we aim to achieve; share in the sum of all knowledge. What they do not do is claim copyright. They are the number one referral site for our traffic.
You may be right in a narrow sense but it will ill serve us to do something about it. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 June 2017 at 19:32, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia corpus for their results.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:40 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Well "fair use" applies, but if the amount of content used goes beyond
fair
use than it needs to be indicated that the content is under an open license.
J
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind
to
the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia policy on adaptive reuse of
Wikipedia
content into non-free publications?
E.g. Graphiq https://www.graphiq.com/terms-and-conditions http://colleges.startclass.com/l/1929/Harvard-University
and Google https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+university
I recognize that Google gives Wikimedia a lot of money, even if the foundation isn't very transparent about that, but I'd think that
doesn't
free the company from following CC BY-SA. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia corpus for their results.
However due to the way their output is structured it falls under "you can't copyright facts".
It search result only contains a snippet (and thus is fair use). Plus Google provide attribution in a lot of their results.
J
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:03 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia corpus for their results.
However due to the way their output is structured it falls under "you can't copyright facts".
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The copyright requirement isn't attribution; it's attribution and copyleft retention for derived works.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:28 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It search result only contains a snippet (and thus is fair use). Plus Google provide attribution in a lot of their results.
J
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:03 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia
corpus
for their results.
However due to the way their output is structured it falls under "you can't copyright facts".
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Attribution is often considered impractical, but providing the source date along with e.g. the article name can be used to derive the attribution, so it should be required. It's not just a good idea to require this information from content re-users like Amazon, Apple, and Google, but doing so will help encourage those who find issues to edit.
If the Foundation doesn't make attribution or at least article date a requirement, then they are actively opposing editor recruitment.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The copyright requirement isn't attribution; it's attribution and copyleft retention for derived works.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:28 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It search result only contains a snippet (and thus is fair use). Plus Google provide attribution in a lot of their results.
J
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:03 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia
corpus
for their results.
However due to the way their output is structured it falls under "you can't copyright facts".
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Does the Foundation have any standing to enforce the copyright, since that belongs to the individual contributors?
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:12 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Attribution is often considered impractical, but providing the source date along with e.g. the article name can be used to derive the attribution, so it should be required. It's not just a good idea to require this information from content re-users like Amazon, Apple, and Google, but doing so will help encourage those who find issues to edit.
If the Foundation doesn't make attribution or at least article date a requirement, then they are actively opposing editor recruitment.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The copyright requirement isn't attribution; it's attribution and
copyleft
retention for derived works.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:28 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
It search result only contains a snippet (and thus is fair use). Plus Google provide attribution in a lot of their results.
J
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:03 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia
corpus
for their results.
However due to the way their output is structured it falls under "you can't copyright facts".
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Related, has there ever been any copyright enforcement for Wikipedia, or is its copyleft a joke and it's functionally purely public domain?
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 7:42 AM, Renée Bagslint reneebagslint@gmail.com wrote:
Does the Foundation have any standing to enforce the copyright, since that belongs to the individual contributors?
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:12 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Attribution is often considered impractical, but providing the source date along with e.g. the article name can be used to derive the attribution, so it should be required. It's not just a good idea to require this information from content re-users like Amazon, Apple, and Google, but doing so will help encourage those who find issues to edit.
If the Foundation doesn't make attribution or at least article date a requirement, then they are actively opposing editor recruitment.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The copyright requirement isn't attribution; it's attribution and
copyleft
retention for derived works.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:28 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
It search result only contains a snippet (and thus is fair use). Plus Google provide attribution in a lot of their results.
J
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:03 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia
corpus
for their results.
However due to the way their output is structured it falls under
"you
can't copyright facts".
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Editors used to do plenty by hand, if you recall. The on-wiki list of mirrors and forks had compliance info, and individuals would reach out and ask for license changes or takedowns.
Since having a legal team I don't know how these have happened, or which individuals have made such claims & requests.
On Jan 29, 2018 10:19 AM, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Related, has there ever been any copyright enforcement for Wikipedia, or is its copyleft a joke and it's functionally purely public domain?
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 7:42 AM, Renée Bagslint reneebagslint@gmail.com wrote:
Does the Foundation have any standing to enforce the copyright, since
that
belongs to the individual contributors?
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:12 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Attribution is often considered impractical, but providing the source date along with e.g. the article name can be used to derive the attribution, so it should be required. It's not just a good idea to require this information from content re-users like Amazon, Apple, and Google, but doing so will help encourage those who find issues to edit.
If the Foundation doesn't make attribution or at least article date a requirement, then they are actively opposing editor recruitment.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The copyright requirement isn't attribution; it's attribution and
copyleft
retention for derived works.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:28 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
It search result only contains a snippet (and thus is fair use).
Plus
Google provide attribution in a lot of their results.
J
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:03 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com
wrote:
> Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire
Wikipedia
corpus
> for their results.
However due to the way their output is structured it falls under
"you
can't copyright facts".
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks. I've added entries for Google Knowledge Graph and various Google derivative products, which have varying quality of attribution and license information and license. None appear to be fully compliant.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Editors used to do plenty by hand, if you recall. The on-wiki list of mirrors and forks had compliance info, and individuals would reach out and ask for license changes or takedowns.
Since having a legal team I don't know how these have happened, or which individuals have made such claims & requests.
On Jan 29, 2018 10:19 AM, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Related, has there ever been any copyright enforcement for Wikipedia, or
is
its copyleft a joke and it's functionally purely public domain?
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 7:42 AM, Renée Bagslint <reneebagslint@gmail.com
wrote:
Does the Foundation have any standing to enforce the copyright, since
that
belongs to the individual contributors?
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:12 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Attribution is often considered impractical, but providing the source date along with e.g. the article name can be used to derive the attribution, so it should be required. It's not just a good idea to require this information from content re-users like Amazon, Apple,
and
Google, but doing so will help encourage those who find issues to edit.
If the Foundation doesn't make attribution or at least article date a requirement, then they are actively opposing editor recruitment.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The copyright requirement isn't attribution; it's attribution and
copyleft
retention for derived works.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:28 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
It search result only contains a snippet (and thus is fair use).
Plus
Google provide attribution in a lot of their results.
J
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:03 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
> On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com
wrote:
> > Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire
Wikipedia
corpus > > for their results. > > > However due to the way their output is structured it falls under
"you
> can't copyright facts". > > > -- > geni > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
2017-06-05 19:32 GMT+03:00 The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com:
I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind to the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia policy on adaptive reuse of Wikipedia content into non-free publications?
E.g. Graphiq https://www.graphiq.com/terms-and-conditions http://colleges.startclass.com/l/1929/Harvard-University
and Google https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+university
I recognize that Google gives Wikimedia a lot of money, even if the foundation isn't very transparent about that, but I'd think that doesn't free the company from following CC BY-SA.
I think you're bang on one of the main topics of the copyright reform discussion currently happening in Europe - should people and companies be allowed to link and/or display a small part of a copyrighted work? I haven't followed the issue in the last few months, but the latest proposals from the Commission basically meant no more links or excerpts (experts: please bear this oversimplification, I know the wording is not exactly this).
AFAIK our public policy team has the opposite position - that such reuse should be permitted. Remember, we're also content consumers, not just content producers, so such legislation would also hit us hard.
If you want to know more about these debates, a good place to start would be the public policy portal [1]. Also check out the wiki page [2] and the mailing list [3].
Regards, Strainu
[1] https://policy.wikimedia.org/ [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_policy [3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org