Talk:How to use or reuse our content: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Should each subarticle say that it came from Wikipedia? What if we edit the original Wikipedia article substantially for a few weeks and THEN decide to split it? [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC) |
Should each subarticle say that it came from Wikipedia? What if we edit the original Wikipedia article substantially for a few weeks and THEN decide to split it? [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC) |
||
== Dual Licences == |
|||
Hi Anthere, |
|||
Just a quick question.. What would Happen if the project i was working on (outside of wikipedia) had a different licence to what Wikipedia was using (in which case is the GFDL). I know that on wikipedia users can use dual licences (GFDL with creative commons licences which are attrabution/share alike either v0.1 or v0.2) |
|||
Would the GFDL take precdence over creative commons licences or would they work side by side? I would like to start a project outside of wikipedia but i would rather use Creative Commons Licences not the GFDL as it appears to be to hard to administer for such a small project i will be undertaking. - [[User:Wildkitten1205|Simsy]] 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:57, 1 November 2005
"1) one or more persons responsible for the modifications, with at least five authors of the Document, are attributed" this is only half true. 5 authors on the so called "Title Page". But the GFDL clearly states "preseve the history" i.e. the entire history. greetings --Paddy 19:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikinews
Wenn Dritte „nur“ Wikinews nennen müssen, dann sollte man den Wikinewsbenutzern sagen, dass sie ihre Werke nicht unter CC-By freigegen, sondern „Wikinews“ quasi (fast) sämtliche Nutzungs- und Verwertungs- und Urheberrechte an ihren Beiträgen übertragen mit der einzigen Auflage, dass bei einer Weiterlizenzierung „Wikinews“ genannt werden muss.
„By“ heißt doch Autorennennung, wie sie (ähnlich) auch in der GFDL verankert ist. --Blaite 21:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Question for derived works
Anthere,
I am working with an Encyclopedia Project which is copying and modifying thousands of English Wikipedia articles. The easy part is giving credit when an entire article is copied, and minor changes are made to it. We simply credit Wikipedia, link to the exact version which was copied (to preserve the "history"), and linke to the GFDL. I believe that for this simple case, all is well.
What's harder is if we copy a Wikipedia article, and then divide into pieces (sub-articles). How do we give credit if we take an article has 5 short sections, split it into 5 sub-articles, and then greatly expand each section? Where do we put the credit?
Should each subarticle say that it came from Wikipedia? What if we edit the original Wikipedia article substantially for a few weeks and THEN decide to split it? Ed Poor 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Dual Licences
Hi Anthere,
Just a quick question.. What would Happen if the project i was working on (outside of wikipedia) had a different licence to what Wikipedia was using (in which case is the GFDL). I know that on wikipedia users can use dual licences (GFDL with creative commons licences which are attrabution/share alike either v0.1 or v0.2) Would the GFDL take precdence over creative commons licences or would they work side by side? I would like to start a project outside of wikipedia but i would rather use Creative Commons Licences not the GFDL as it appears to be to hard to administer for such a small project i will be undertaking. - Simsy 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)