Hi Dušan, The legal team handles all manner of legal issues. You'll need to be patient. I can't speed up their process for you, nor give you more information than I already have.
Also, please don't send duplicate messages to the list. That would be considered spam. Thanks! Ariel Glenn dumps co-maintainer On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 11:56 AM Dušan Kreheľ <dusankre...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Platonides Thanks for your comment. I analyzed your post and updated > the documents. > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Xmldatadumps-l mailing list -- xmldatadumps-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to xmldatadumps-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org