[Wikipedia-l] Re: Crown Copyright and the GNU FDL

[Arwel Parry]

In message <200306201211.12188.maveric149 at yahoo.com>, Daniel Mayer 
<maveric149=/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
>It seems that some of our ship text has been copied from websites using the
>Crown Copyright which reads in part;
>
>"....may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research,
>private study or for internal circulation within an organisation."
>
>That may cover Wikipedia itself but not downstream users of our text.
>
>"This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a
>misleading context."
>
>Having this text on a wiki leads to a very real possibility that the text will
>be modified to be something it wasn't before. It is also a very subjective
>clause.
>
>"Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or
>copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the
>copyright status acknowledged."
>
>In other words the Crown Copyright is viral. This IMO is wholly incompatible
>with the GNU FDL.
>
>What say you?
>
>-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

Hmm. You may have a point. I haven't found the quote on Crown Copyright 
which you cite, but on the guidance page 
(http://www.hmso.gov.uk/copyright/guidance/guidance.htm) I've found:

"What is meant by waiver?

Waiver means that although copyright is asserted, Government wishes to 
encourage the widespread use of the material. Users are permitted to 
copy or publish the material in any medium without having to seek formal 
permission or to pay a fee. We do, however, ask that users ensure that:

- the material is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context; 
- that the material is correctly acknowledged and that the source and 
status of the material is identified. "

which I read as indicating that though my article on [[HMS Glasgow]] is 
legal at the moment, there is certainly the possibility that at some 
time in the future someone may come along and edit the article so that 
it's no longer accurate, or becomes misleading. Perhaps some rewriting 
is in order...

-- 
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/