It seems that some of our ship text has been copied from websites using the Crown Copyright which reads in part;
"....may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation."
That may cover Wikipedia itself but not downstream users of our text.
"This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context."
Having this text on a wiki leads to a very real possibility that the text will be modified to be something it wasn't before. It is also a very subjective clause.
"Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged."
In other words the Crown Copyright is viral. This IMO is wholly incompatible with the GNU FDL.
What say you?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On 6/20/03 3:11 PM, "Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
It seems that some of our ship text has been copied from websites using the Crown Copyright which reads in part;
"....may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation."
That may cover Wikipedia itself but not downstream users of our text.
"This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context."
Having this text on a wiki leads to a very real possibility that the text will be modified to be something it wasn't before. It is also a very subjective clause.
"Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged."
In other words the Crown Copyright is viral. This IMO is wholly incompatible with the GNU FDL.
The viral part isn't the problem, it's the other conditions. Yes, it's incompatible with the GFDL.
In message 200306201211.12188.maveric149@yahoo.com, Daniel Mayer maveric149=/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org writes
It seems that some of our ship text has been copied from websites using the Crown Copyright which reads in part;
"....may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation."
That may cover Wikipedia itself but not downstream users of our text.
"This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context."
Having this text on a wiki leads to a very real possibility that the text will be modified to be something it wasn't before. It is also a very subjective clause.
"Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged."
In other words the Crown Copyright is viral. This IMO is wholly incompatible with the GNU FDL.
What say you?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Hmm. You may have a point. I haven't found the quote on Crown Copyright which you cite, but on the guidance page (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/copyright/guidance/guidance.htm) I've found:
"What is meant by waiver?
Waiver means that although copyright is asserted, Government wishes to encourage the widespread use of the material. Users are permitted to copy or publish the material in any medium without having to seek formal permission or to pay a fee. We do, however, ask that users ensure that:
- the material is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context; - that the material is correctly acknowledged and that the source and status of the material is identified. "
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...
Daniel Mayer wrote:
"Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged."
In other words the Crown Copyright is viral.
That's not what people usually mean when they describe a licence as viral. To be viral, it would have to require the material it is being combined with to be licenced under the same terms.
I agree with your other points, though.
-M-
Daniel Mayer wrote:
It seems that some of our ship text has been copied from websites using the Crown Copyright which reads in part;
"....may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation."
That may cover Wikipedia itself but not downstream users of our text.
"This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context."
"Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged."
What say you?
With Canadian Crown Copyright prior permission is required to for the use of all such material except extracts from laws and court decisions. Technically even reproducing a Canadian stamp without permission is a violation of copyright. Each stamp has a copyright notice on it. Of course, how this is practically admministered may be another story.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org