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
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_L... (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.
To expand on platonides response,
As pointed out on your other emails relating this subject, the best contact would be to email the legal team address.
On Wed, 26 July 2023, 11:46 am Platonides, platonides@gmail.com wrote:
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_L... (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
I was away from work for the past two days and so unable to reply. My apologies! Indeed, Dušan, if you want to sort out exactly what to do with/about the licenses, the legal team is the way to go. Reach them at legal (at) wikimedia.org. Hope you get it sorted!
Ariel
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 5:57 AM p858snake p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
To expand on platonides response,
As pointed out on your other emails relating this subject, the best contact would be to email the legal team address.
On Wed, 26 July 2023, 11:46 am Platonides, platonides@gmail.com wrote:
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_L... (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
Xmldatadumps-l mailing list -- xmldatadumps-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to xmldatadumps-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
@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_L... (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.
Hi Dušan,
The legal team handles all manner of legal issues. You'll need to be patient. I can't speed up their process for you, nor give you more information than I already have.
Also, please don't send duplicate messages to the list. That would be considered spam. Thanks!
Ariel Glenn dumps co-maintainer
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 11:56 AM Dušan Kreheľ dusankrehel@gmail.com wrote:
@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_L...
(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
@Platonides:
I would like it if some exports included the text of the licenses at the beginning, and the content license type (new XML item <license>) for the item in the export. Example in the files: - stub-articles.xml.gz - stub-meta-current.xml.gz - stub-meta-history.xml.gz - pages-articles-multistream.xml.bz2 - pages-articles.xml.bz2 - pages-meta-current.xml.bz2
D. K.
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_L... (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@lists.wikimedia.org