Copyright is a restriction on public access on this document that is meant
to be released without restrictions. This is a powerful argument we
shouldn't exclude. Unless explicitly stated we need to exclude anything
that isn't freely licensed. This is per existing policy that should be
familiar to everyone.
I was not aware the report itself had an independent license. Why is there
a discrepancy between the report's copyright notice and that of the
website? You cannot really blame me as the terms and conditions of the
websites makes no mention of it.The website should echo the copyright of
the report, not override it. This is an issue that can be fixed.
Are classified attachments also under the same license? They should be but
is this explicitly stated anywhere? How about interviews recorded by the
BBC etc (ie other content such as videos)? Ideally, everything on the site
should be freely licensed so that in can be copied to wikisource and
commons (videos and media including pdfs).
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 8 July 2016 at 16:02, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 8 July 2016 at 01:51, とある白い猫
<to.aru.shiroi.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It can be argued that the current copyright
obfuscates the general
public's
access to the report.
How so?
I do feel that any single email from us would be
promptly ignored as
there
probably is a large volume of emails. It may be
prudent to either start a
petition (for the Parliament) or ask a few MPs to raise the copyright
issue
in the Parliament.
Petitioning for what? The report is already under the CC-by compatible
Open Government Licence 3.0
First of, the websites terms and conditions do
not explicitly release the
works under a free license.[1]
No, the report's licence is on the pages of the report itself.
Moreover it mentions BSkyB, BBC and ITN as
copyright holders of some of
the
documents. Any migration to Wikisource must
filter out such content.
Are your referring to inclusions in the report, or to other content on
the inquiry website?
Lastly there are a number of now declassified
documents that provide
vital
evidence to reinforce the reports findings, these
too need to be freely
licensed.
AIUI, they are (albeit with understandable redactions).
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk