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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 15:14, Dušan Kreheľ
<dusankrehel(a)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_…
(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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to xmldatadumps-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org