Copyright is a restriction on public access on this document that is meant to be released without restrictions. This is a powerful argument we shouldn't exclude. Unless explicitly stated we need to exclude anything that isn't freely licensed. This is per existing policy that should be familiar to everyone.
I was not aware the report itself had an independent license. Why is there a discrepancy between the report's copyright notice and that of the website? You cannot really blame me as the terms and conditions of the websites makes no mention of it.The website should echo the copyright of the report, not override it. This is an issue that can be fixed. Are classified attachments also under the same license? They should be but is this explicitly stated anywhere? How about interviews recorded by the BBC etc (ie other content such as videos)? Ideally, everything on the site should be freely licensed so that in can be copied to wikisource and commons (videos and media including pdfs). -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On 8 July 2016 at 16:02, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: > On 8 July 2016 at 01:51, とある白い猫 <to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general > public's > > access to the report. > > How so? > > > I do feel that any single email from us would be promptly ignored as > there > > probably is a large volume of emails. It may be prudent to either start a > > petition (for the Parliament) or ask a few MPs to raise the copyright > issue > > in the Parliament. > > Petitioning for what? The report is already under the CC-by compatible > Open Government Licence 3.0 > > > First of, the websites terms and conditions do not explicitly release the > > works under a free license.[1] > > No, the report's licence is on the pages of the report itself. > > > Moreover it mentions BSkyB, BBC and ITN as copyright holders of some of > the > > documents. Any migration to Wikisource must filter out such content. > > Are your referring to inclusions in the report, or to other content on > the inquiry website? > > > Lastly there are a number of now declassified documents that provide > vital > > evidence to reinforce the reports findings, these too need to be freely > > licensed. > > AIUI, they are (albeit with understandable redactions). > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
