Wikisource:Copyright discussions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw: long answer |
|||
Line 200:
::::: I guess those are the terms of use -- the text may be validly licensed that way, and the author is not subject to the terms of use, but technically a user here cannot import that under those terms. It is nonsensical to me though that we would allow scans like that but not be able to transcribe them -- the copyright on the scan is the exact same as the copyright of the text. Can such scanned PDFs not have a text layer in them? Projects are allowed to have an EDP (an exemption to the regular licensing rules which makes more sense for their project). Those are normally used to allow non-free works, which Wikisource could never do, but maybe this situation is one area which may make more sense. To me, the terms of use was written for the collaborative text situation (which is true just about everywhere else on Wikimedia projects), but Wikisource is a bit unique in that aspect. I do guess that earlier uploaded GFDL works were allowed to be cross-licensed with CC-BY-SA (did we ever go around and change the licenses?) which could make a difference in that the text could be copied over as part of other projects. But I'm not sure it makes any sense to restrict Wikisource to only PD, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA works. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|talk]]) 15:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The sentence of [[:wmf:Terms of Use (2009)]] that is relevant is "Furthermore, please note that you cannot import information which is available only under the GFDL." So [[27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw]] is a clear Terms of Use violation by {{user|Justmeherenow}} ;-) I say that tongue in cheek, as clearly there is no intent to harm, and the usual Wikimedia content licensing situation doesnt apply to Wikisource as the original content being reproduced is not user-generated, and the original text is not amended on Wikisource, and there isnt much else to copyright here. However we do have a problem also with all content in [[:Category:GFDL]], especially anything imported after November 1, 2008 and extremely especially after the relicensing clause expired on August 1, 2009. (see https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Interoperability_between_Creative_Commons_licenses_and_GFDL ). This was never properly resolved on Wikimedia Commons either, as many photographers refused to accept automatic dual licensing migration of their GFDL-only high resolution photos. See [[c:Category:GFDL]]. Because Commons is large and those photographers very vocal, they have pretty pictures, and they had very good arguments too (like preferring to trust FSF than WMF), this resulted in a text vs images distinction in the ToU, licensing upgrade tricks, etc. The WMF simply didnt want to tackle more than they could chew, so they allowed GFDL photos, but not text, even thought the GFDL is almost ridiculous when used for stand-alone photos, but it is certainly designed for primarily textual works with only media supporting the text.<br/>In short, the terminology distinction between images and text in the Terms of Use is silly, especially on Wikisource, and needs to be revisited. Editing images is the same as editing text, it is only the ease and volume of edits that differs. We should treat our faithful reproductions (facsimile) as 'Non-text media' in the ToU - they are not creative works intended to be gradually improved over time by the community.<br/> If anyone feels particularly strongly about the problem with GFDL texts wrt the ToU, we could call GFDL textual works 'non-free' (irony alert) and create an [[meta:EDP|Exemption Doctrine Policy]] (see especially [[Non-free_content#Wikisource]]) to bypass the Wikimedia licensing policy. I'd be happy to lead that effort, rather than accepting the sheer stupidity of having GFDL scans permitted on Commons that we are legally not allowed to transcribe. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 07:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
== [[The Testament of St. Francis of Assisi]] ==
{{closed|1=Replaced with PD text --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 05:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)|text=
| |||