On 8 July 2016 at 15:42, とある白い猫 <to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 haven't seen anyone say otherwise so I'm not sure what point you're making here. > 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? Because one applies to the report, the other to the website. > Are classified attachments also under the same license? The statement in the report (I'm looking at the executive summary) is: This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. so you're going to need to look at the individual attachments to determine whether an exclusion is made. > How about interviews recorded by the BBC > etc (ie other content such as videos)? AIUI, these are not part of the report. > Ideally, everything on the site should be freely licensed so that in can > be copied to wikisource and commons (videos and media including > pdfs). On what basis would you compel the BBC and commercial providers to relinquish their rights? -- 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
