On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 15:14, Dušan Kreheľ <dusankre...@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-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
