User talk:GregG/Wikipedia copyright

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia teaching usage

Under the CC-BY-CA license you can copy any Wikipedia article you like, for teaching or any other purpose, provided you add something like the following:

"copied from (or based on) Wikipedia article {name and link to article} accessed on {date/time}". 

This requirement does not seem particularly onerous. RolandPlankton 17:11, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

The Wikipedia policy seems to conflict with the CC-BY-SA 3100+ word license. Which takes priority?--Andy Schlafly 18:13, 7 May 2012 (EDT)
There is no conflict. Section 4c of the legal code reads
If You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work (as defined in Section 1 above) or any Derivative Works (as defined in Section 1 above) or Collective Works (as defined in Section 1 above), You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and, consistent with Section 3(b) in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Derivative Work or Collective Work appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors. For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.

I understand Wikipedia's interpretation to be consistent with the legal code. GregG 18:25, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

Provided you comply with the simple requirement above you can use a Wikipedia article for any purpose, including criticism (which could reasonably happen in a teaching/study environment). I note that the Conservapedia copyright conditions allow your copyright license to be revoked if someone (who?) doesn't like the way in which the copied material is used. I can't see any legal department allowing copying from Conservapedia if the copyright license could be revoked at any time, or indeed as the copyright license itself can be changed at any time. RolandPlankton 18:47, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

License changes

Originally Wikipedia articles were licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. After extensive discussion to which all editors could contribute the license terms were changed to dual licensing under both the GFDL and CC-BY-CA. I count one repeat ONE change of license.

The Conservapedia copyright license has no history available prior to 6 April 2007. On looking at the history from that point I count 11 non-minor changes on 6 April 2007, 2 on 7th April 2007. and 1 each on 20 April 2007, 23 May 2008, 12 April 2008. This looks like at least SIXTEEN license changes to me. And I can't see any commitment not to change the license again. Indeed it would be possible for some copying to be valid in April 2007, and invalid after April 2008.

In summary, one upwards compatible license change for Wikipedia, and sixteen possible incompatible changes for Conservapedia. RolandPlankton 17:31, 7 May 2012 (EDT)


What is the 'byzantine' system of rules which Wikipedia uses?

Under teaching above I have shown the basic rule to follow, what is the problem with that? RolandPlankton 18:09, 7 May 2012 (EDT)