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 <p858sn...@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, <platoni...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Xmldatadumps-l mailing list -- xmldatadumps-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe send an email to xmldatadumps-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Xmldatadumps-l mailing list -- xmldatadumps-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to xmldatadumps-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
