OpenWetWare talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
Line 2: Line 2:


I want to check that we are legally allowed to copy GFDL text (like Wikipedia) on to OpenWetWare (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights). It's not clear to me because as we are dual-licensing and we don't have the copyright to the Wikipedia article, does that mean technically we can't relicense it under Creative Commons also?
I want to check that we are legally allowed to copy GFDL text (like Wikipedia) on to OpenWetWare (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights). It's not clear to me because as we are dual-licensing and we don't have the copyright to the Wikipedia article, does that mean technically we can't relicense it under Creative Commons also?
*'''[[User:Rshetty|RS]] 16:33, 5 April 2006 (EDT)''': You're not allowed to use GFDL material on OpenWetWare.  All works that use material copyrighted under GFDL, also have to be copyrighted under GFDL.  So putting it on OWW and implying that it can be reused under Creative Commons is wrong.  Now that being said, I doubt we'll have too much of a problem in practice since in spirit the GFDL and Creative Commons license we chose are similar, if not in letter.  Someone correct me if I have this wrong.

Revision as of 13:33, 5 April 2006

GFDL/Creative Commons

I want to check that we are legally allowed to copy GFDL text (like Wikipedia) on to OpenWetWare (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights). It's not clear to me because as we are dual-licensing and we don't have the copyright to the Wikipedia article, does that mean technically we can't relicense it under Creative Commons also?

  • RS 16:33, 5 April 2006 (EDT): You're not allowed to use GFDL material on OpenWetWare. All works that use material copyrighted under GFDL, also have to be copyrighted under GFDL. So putting it on OWW and implying that it can be reused under Creative Commons is wrong. Now that being said, I doubt we'll have too much of a problem in practice since in spirit the GFDL and Creative Commons license we chose are similar, if not in letter. Someone correct me if I have this wrong.