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

Reply via email to