I have restored the GFDL copyright and copyright logo into the wiki. It was a config issue.
I am busy extending Wiki code to authoritatively track articles imported from WP. For all unedited articles and articles first imported from WP the templates will be automagically included.
--Peter
On 10/21/06, Larry Sanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David's having posting trouble again so here's something from him (with a
tiny note by me at the end)
=========
I have just started going through the e-mails and see a warning from Philipp
Rumpf. I seem to have dropped the ball. Given that everyone was talking so
confidently about forking WP, I made a blind assumption that we had invoked
a licence of some kind when the Textop (and the new project site) were being
set up. I should have checked on the copyright terms being applied generally
by CZ. It's my fault.
The relevant section of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) states:
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially
or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and
the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are
reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to
those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or
control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you
distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the
conditions in section 3.
We need the GFDL licence notice to be displayed ASAP. Any work originated on
our site that is "derivative" of works obtained from WP must be released
under the same licence used by WP, must state that it is released under that
licence, and reproduce (i.e. link to) a complete copy of the licence in all
copies of the work.
Rumpf raises a second question as to acknowledgement of the work of the
individual authors who may have worked on the relevant WP page(s) I think an
immediately defensible position is to link back to the relevant page(s) in
WP where anyone who wants to, can go through the page histories and work out
who contributed what. In my view, it would only be necessary to seek
individual author clearances if we were going to place a different set of
terms on the material we put on public display.
Thus, I need the loyal tech people to do their thing as the highest
priority. We need a clear tag line which reads:
This page incorporates material from the Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) page "[example]"
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[example]). The list of the authors who
contributed to that page can be found here (i.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=[example]=history )
We also need to link to the text of the licence at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.txt or import the text and link to
that page. On balance, I think importing it might be better to import and
link internally.
Please use the following words:
"All text on this page is available under the terms of the GNU Free
Documentation License."
It is always good to start off on a high. I take full responsibility for
this oversight. If anyone contacts CZ to complain, please refer them to me.
David
==========
I have fixed this problem myself. See the notice added to the top of this
page:
http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Proposed_Articles_for_Citizendium
_Pilot_Project
I've made three templates: {{disclaim}}, {{WP}}, and {{GFDL}}
--Larry
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
_______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
