Hi there...
Images dump which I downloaded from http://download.wikimedia.org/images/wikipedia/en/ is not full. Is it because of license for some images or another reason?
For example there are no *Tux.png, **Commons-logo.png, ** Wikiquote-logo-en.png **and Wikibooks-logo-en.png *for Linux article.
Thanks Sergey
On 08/09/05, Sergey Samoylov ssamoylov@gmail.com wrote:
Images dump which I downloaded from http://download.wikimedia.org/images/wikipedia/en/ is not full. Is it because of license for some images or another reason?
For example there are no *Tux.png, **Commons-logo.png, ** Wikiquote-logo-en.png **and Wikibooks-logo-en.png *for Linux article.
These are probably hosted on the Wikimedia Commons (which is a repository of liberally-licensed multimedia content, if you haven't come upon it yet) - images hosted there can be directly used in Wikipedia pages, but they won't turn up in the dump because they're not hosted by that project. [I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux.png and that one is, for a start.] This is kind of confusing, but at least if you do get the Commons dump, you can be fairly sure there are no images in it that are actually copyrighted, since Commons has no place for "fair use" or anything like that. Hope this helps some.
Rowan Collins wrote:
These are probably hosted on the Wikimedia Commons (which is a repository of liberally-licensed multimedia content,
No, it's not. It is a repository of liberally-licensed multimedia content plus, paradoxically, a few restrictively-licensed logos from the supposedly-so-free Wikimedia Foundation.
if you do get the Commons dump, you can be fairly sure there are no images in it that are actually copyrighted,
The majority of content in the Commons is copyrighted. If it wasn't, it couldn't be licensed, liberally or otherwise.
Timwi
On 10/09/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Rowan Collins wrote:
if you do get the Commons dump, you can be fairly sure there are no images in it that are actually copyrighted,
The majority of content in the Commons is copyrighted. If it wasn't, it couldn't be licensed, liberally or otherwise.
Oops. I meant "that are actually copyright violations", or perhaps "that would be copyright violations if *you* used them", but it got rather too shortened. Normally, I feel the need to apologise because I've been too *verbose*...!
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org