@Platonides Thanks for your comment. I analyzed your post and updated
the documents.

2023-07-26 3:45 GMT+02:00, Platonides <platonides@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 15:14, Dušan Kreheľ <dusankrehel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello, Wikipedia export is not right licensed. Could this be brought
>> into compliance with the licenses? The wording of the violation is:
>> https://krehel.sk/Oprava_poruseni_licencei_CC_BY-SA_a_GFDL/ (Slovak).
>>
>> Dušan Kreheľ
>
>
> Hello Dušan
>
> I would encourage you to write in English. I have used an automatic
> translator to look at your pages, but such machine translation may not
> convey correctly what you intended.
>
> Also note, this is not the right venue for some of the issues you seem to
> expect.
>
> The main point I think you are missing is that *all the GFDL content is
> also under a CC-BY-SA license*, per the license update performed in 2009
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation> as
> allowed by GFDL 1.3. All the text is under a CC-BY-SA license (or
> compatible, e.g. text in Public Domain), *most* of it also under GFDL, but
> not all.
> It's thus enough to follow the CC-BY-SA terms.
>
> The interpretation is that for webpages it is enough to include a link,
> there's no need to include all extra resources (license text, list of
> authors, etc.) *on the same HTTP response*. Just like you don't need to
> include all of that on *every* page of a book under that license, but only
> once, usually placed at the end of the book.
>
> Note that the text of the GFDL is included in the dumps by virtue of being
> in pages such as
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License
> (it may not be the best approach, but it *is* included)
>
> Images in the pages are considered an aggregate, and so they are accepted
> under a different license than the text.
>
> That you license the text under the *GFDL unversioned, with no invariant
> sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts* describes how you agree
> to license the content that you submit to the site. It does not restrict
> your rights granted by the license. You could edit a GFDL article and
> publish your version in your blog under a specific GFDL version and
> including an invariant section. But that would not be accepted in
> Wikipedia.
>
> You may have a point in the difference between CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA
> 4.0, though. There could be a more straightforward display of the license
> for reusers than expecting they determine the exact version by manually
> checking the date of last publication.
>
_______________________________________________
Xmldatadumps-l mailing list -- xmldatadumps-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to xmldatadumps-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org