@Platonides: I would like it if some exports included the text of the licenses at the beginning, and the content license type (new XML item <license>) for the item in the export. Example in the files: - stub-articles.xml.gz - stub-meta-current.xml.gz - stub-meta-history.xml.gz - pages-articles-multistream.xml.bz2 - pages-articles.xml.bz2 - pages-meta-current.xml.bz2
D. K. 2023-07-26 3:45 GMT+02:00, Platonides <platoni...@gmail.com>: > 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
