Licenses = public domain?
"or similar free resource" -- Isn't public domain the only public domain-compatible liscence? 126.96.36.199 20:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No, as I understand it there are other copyleft licenses which allow any derivation, without crediting, but I may be mistaken about this. See Copyleft - Amgine 20:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, although I've tried my best to understand the Copyright Act here in Canada. As far as I can tell, there is no legal equivalent of "public domain" as it is used in the US. While I can certainly give up some rights (with respect to copying for instance), I cannot give up others (moral rights are a good example). My understanding is that only in the US can you put something in the "public domain". My feeling is that asking people to put their contributions into the "public domain" (presumably to allow others to use the content unattributed) could potentially cause problems for users of this information in other countries. I certainly would feel better with something a little more universally adopted. However, I have yet to submit or use anything, so for me it's a moot point...
We should IMHO add that incorporating Wikipedia content is not allowed. Because, if people read "free resource" in the last paragraph of the warning, they might think that copying text from Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia is OK. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with that. Bawolff 23:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. Does anyone have a suggested text modification? - Amgine/talk 00:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I added smallcaps and the border because I thought it'd look cool. Bawolff 23:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- I like the wording. And it does look cool :). --Deprifry|+T+ 08:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Brion made some changes to the edit page code, that reorders things a bit. This message now appears above the save page/show preview buttons. As is the warning is much to long. I have reduced it down to be much shorter, since it both looks better and I do not believe people who most of the message is aimed at really read it anyways :). --Cspurrier 18:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
That capitalisation thing, "Do Not Submit Copyrighted Work Without Permission!", is really really ugly. It should be changed to "Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!". Jon Harald Søby 18:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed; changed. -- IlyaHaykinson 20:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
One more thing
I suggest that we amend this warning a little bit. Although I'm not sure if CC-BY-SA work can be included in CC-BY documents, I think we should just amend this warning with one more bullet point:
- You must have written your work yourself or copied it from a compatibly licensed resource or public domain resource.
- Please note that text from other Wikimedia sites (such as Wikipedia) cannot be posted to Wikinews, as the licensing used by all other Wikimedia sites is incompatible with the more lenient requirements of the Wikinews license.
- I'd suggest that you bring this up on the watercooler in order to get concensuse for this change. I don't feel comfortable making a significant change like that without consultation. I'll leave the editprotected request in place for now, until such consultation is done. Gopher65talk 06:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not done, at least for now. This is a rather significant change, and I think it's safest to first obtain consensus before adding the text. I'll post at the water cooler asking for other people's opinion on this. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Change to reflect consistancy with other Wikimedia sites
So, apparently last year, the general council pushed some "revised" language for these warning messages on the edit page. I think we should do something similar, but adjust it to reflect our differences. I hereby wish it to be changed to this:
By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree that your contributions will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. You also agree that attribution to "Wikinews" is sufficient attribution under the license.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! You must have written your work yourself or copied it from a compatibly licensed resource or public domain resource. Other Wikimedia sites (such as Wikipedia) are not considered to be a compatibly licensed resource, as their license terms contain requirements which conflict with the less restrictive Wikinews license.
- I essentially like it, want to change it slightly. First: "...to include it on Wikinews." - just delete that, it's implied. Second: "Due to its use of a different license..." - I'd rather "Due to our use of a less restrictive license...". In part, its -> our as a minor copyedit, and second it explains why the two licenses are incompatible.
- I'm not into consistency for its own sake, but do think this is an improvement. Not doing it immediately pending some other thoughts on this. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Revision for consistency with other Wikinedia sites, again
To promote better consistency between other projects, and because my previous revision wasn't acted upon yet, I'd like to propose this instead
You agree that credit to "Wikinews" is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Due to incompatibilities between their licensing policies, copying text from other Wikimedia websites, including Wikipedia, is considered to be a copyright violation.