Arwel Parry wrote:
which I read as indicating that though my article on [[HMS Glasgow]] is legal at the moment, there is certainly the possibility that at some time in the future someone may come along and edit the article so that it's no longer accurate, or becomes misleading. Perhaps some rewriting is in order...
I think the intent of the Crown Copyright is mostly in the spirit of an Open/Free content license so light rewriting and giving the source of the infomation credit in a references section (without the Crown Copyright notice since it would just be a simple reference) should do just fine.
Light rewriting = moving some phrases around and changing some words with equivalent words just enough to pass an exact phrase Google test. Nothing major or too time consuming.
Of course you would score a major coup for the project by getting the copyright holder (the Royal Navy if I recall) to allow us to use their text under terms of the GNU FDL.
Look for the link to the "Boilerplate request for permission" at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerplate_text (hopefully this link will work soon)
-- mav
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Mayer wrote: | Of course you would score a major coup for the project by getting the | copyright holder (the Royal Navy if I recall) to allow us to use their text | under terms of the GNU FDL.
I accept your challenge. This weekend I will draft (draught?) a letter to HM Stationery Office. (There's more Web sites in HM Government than just the Royal Navy, so why should I restrict my query to the First Sea Lord?) I will upload the letter early next week for comment, and post it by the end of the week.
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | Yoicks, and away! ~ sean@epoptic.com |
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Light rewriting = moving some phrases around and changing some words with equivalent words just enough to pass an exact phrase Google test. Nothing major or too time consuming.
I think that's not really the right approach. Facts aren't copyrightable, but particular presentations are. Simply moving stuff around and changing some words created a derivative work, rather than an original work based on information gleaned from their work.
It's a gray area, and we surely want to stay very much on the "clean" side of that fuzzy line.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org