Hi Larry and others,
# Shouldn't we set up some protocol on Wikipedia
whereby this constantly
recurring issue can be systematically resolved?
There should be a publicly available procedure (in text or linked form)
which describes the copyright evalutaion process.
So that everyone can at least to some degree evaluate it.
I would propose some kind of programmed scheme:
(1) Is it a work that you wrote yourself ENTIRELY?
Yes -> (*) No -> (*)
(2) Do you have used any other material in preparing this contribution?
Yes -> (*) No -> (*)
(3) Do you have cited one or more items from a source not your own?
Yes -> (*) No -> (*)
(4) Do you have translated material from another language?
(*) You are a great author. Please submit.
(*) You have copied all from sources not your own
-> this CANNOT be used in wikipedia. police is underway.
(as far as i know)
not too much, please. Should not exceed 10 (?) percent.
Copyright allows citations from others, but it should not be a substantial
part of a work.
You need permission of the original author.
Public domain sources _can_ interfer with later translated work. (If you
retranslate something already translated, but (later) translator still has
rights thereon. I dont know if somebody is allowed to retranslate if some
proper translations exists. But how to determine originality/the difference
between two translations??
(*) Public domain resources
There is a slightly different definition in some or all countries although
effort has been made to make this equal in all countries by the
organisations for intellectual property.
One thing public domain in one state is not necessarily public domain in
another. The same problems is seen in some (later) statements in Project
This in fact says that one is going to assume public domain and in legal is
not, instead it is a copyright infringement.
BTW What about asking Project Gutenberg staff members. They must have some
evaluation procedure already?
You cannot use trademarks for your own. Except in an encyclopedian work.
wikipedia should have an 'trademarks are the property of their respective
owners and are not assumed to be used freely' statement for pages that
(Or a page which lists all known trademarks. Uugh.)
BTW 'wikipedia' should be trademarked. If another person does it there is no
way to solve it, even so if wikipedia has used it long before such a
trademarkiation(?). Could even stop using of domains. ..
(c't (German computer paper, www.heise.de/ct
has a huge amount of articles
on that problem. Crazy world.))
(*) Betriebsgeheimnisse (?)Proprietary Knowledge
You cannot publish proprietary knowledge even if you wrote all this on your
There is a case about publishing D V D secu rity codes by a professor.
(*) Publisher rights
Reading some books on that matter there is an equal amount of legal stuff on
publisher and publishing rights as is the case with copyright items.
People -especially authors- have to make sure that they haven't sold items
under some exclusive license to anybody else. Come to GNU!
(*) Misunderstanding of the 'legal availability of some private copies'
That is the N music case. Short: Anybode can make a very very small number
of private copies. True. BUT must have got a legally copy of the work as
long as holding a copy of it(!). Somebody else cannot provide such a service
for you because THEY perform a massive duplication of works then. This seems
even the case if private persons owning original records want to have a copy
of it somewhere in cyberspace. No service is allowed to provide that. Every
private person has to process it on their own. N has to pay for it.
(*) Patent claims
One (great) publisher writes in all his books, similarly: "For educational
services only - not evaluated according to patent issues !" This might has
something to do with commercial applications of some items. Until now I dont
understand what is the problem here. Maybe somebody prosecutes (?anklagen)
you the publisher that you have let him believe something is free to be used
and it isnt. Like LZW compression scheme. Think of somebody reading on it,
develope a huge software product and finally finds out that it is patented,
or even after he has made some money from it.
This is arbitrarily (?) complex.
Anybody who can show up evidence in such an infringement of some rights can
stop you publishing it/all rigorously.
-> advice -> make it modular as much as possible. (ever true)
-> let lawyers evaluate big sources (like PG encyclopedia)
-> reuse project gutenberg evaluations
-> lawyers please help us!