Template talk:Cover
Add topicLatest comment: 6 years ago by SVTCobra
This is not Wikipedia content. Wikipedia content is in the Mainspace, just like Wikinews content is in the Mainspace. All these tools and things that Wikimedia projects share are not subject to those. --SVTCobra 02:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- try to edit the page from where you copied the content. See the licensing notice. Then see the licensing notice below this template page. Editors agree to license their content with specified license unless stated. There is no such licensing announcement for the template you stole. 223.237.193.159 (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- the source clearly states “Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License“ and and modification must be licensed under CC BY-SA. However, Wikinews has no SA clause in the reuse.
223.237.193.159 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)- Wikipedia’s licensing information is available at w:Wikipedia:Copyrights, which has no exception for templates. 223.237.193.159 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please read Compatible licenses. You will see that our licenses are mostly compatible. Furthermore, it is Wikipedia sharing with Wikinews, not the other way around. So the "ShareAlike" aspect applies. Also, modifications, such as those I made are perfectly acceptable.
I am not a newbie when it comes to copyright and licenses. Besides, all the underlying code and who knows how many scripts are shared broadly across all of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. And why wouldn't they? They are all owned by the same entity. None of us are autonomous, we are semi-autonomous.
And that statement at the bottom appears on every page. Even if it is a page with a copyrighted image. Just look at this example.
I know it is very complicated and it took me a very long time to learn the ins-and-outs of it. I hope you can trust me on this issue. I did learn something in almost 12 years here. --SVTCobra 03:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)- text from Wikipedia has to be under same license of CC BY-SA. Wikinews’ content is not restricted for that. Wikipedia’s text is not or better say can not be used on Wikinews. The other way around is true. For the file discussion: as the footer note says “text is licensed” not the image.
- TL;DR CC BY => CC BY-SA is okay. CC BY-SA => CC BY is not. 223.237.192.39 (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please read Compatible licenses. You will see that our licenses are mostly compatible. Furthermore, it is Wikipedia sharing with Wikinews, not the other way around. So the "ShareAlike" aspect applies. Also, modifications, such as those I made are perfectly acceptable.
- Wikipedia’s licensing information is available at w:Wikipedia:Copyrights, which has no exception for templates. 223.237.193.159 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- the source clearly states “Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License“ and and modification must be licensed under CC BY-SA. However, Wikinews has no SA clause in the reuse.
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
See one way and two way compatibility about CC BY-SA and CC BY if you do not agree. There is a difference between almost same and exactly same. Moreover, just like authors of the article do not “own” the article, these contributions on Wikipedia is to be attributed to Wikipedia and the the individual users.
223.237.192.39 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, if you don't read it, I guess I can't expect you to learn from that. So I will try to explain again, the licenses are about the Mainspace content. The things people write in articles. It is not about the code, the templates, the categories. Why do you think we can share the same mark-up language? It is because it is all under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation. We are legally one entity. Now, when you were arguing about WikiTribune, that was different. WikiTribune is not part of Wikimedia.--SVTCobra 03:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Even though it does not apply to templates (which are non-content), the one-way compatibility favors Wikinews. If you look at the very bottom of the page for each article, there are some words. On Wikinews, it says "must be attributed" ... on Wikipedia, those words do not exist. Therefore, Wikinews could actually copy entire Wikipedia articles (if we considered them a reliable source). That's the one way. But if you insist the licenses apply to templates, etc. (which it doesn't) you would have to admit we can copy/change/use things from Wikipedia. Is it clear yet? --SVTCobra 04:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t know why is it so hard for you to understand. Saying “Wikinews can copy Wikipedia”, I don’t think you understand the licensing. (CC @Pi zero, Tom Morris:) lemme quote what CC has to say “CC BY is one-way compatible with BY-SA. You may adapt a BY work and apply BY-SA to your contributions, but you may not adapt a BY-SA work and apply BY to your contributions.” and it applies to the text message of the template.
223.237.221.162 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t know why is it so hard for you to understand. Saying “Wikinews can copy Wikipedia”, I don’t think you understand the licensing. (CC @Pi zero, Tom Morris:) lemme quote what CC has to say “CC BY is one-way compatible with BY-SA. You may adapt a BY work and apply BY-SA to your contributions, but you may not adapt a BY-SA work and apply BY to your contributions.” and it applies to the text message of the template.
- Even though it does not apply to templates (which are non-content), the one-way compatibility favors Wikinews. If you look at the very bottom of the page for each article, there are some words. On Wikinews, it says "must be attributed" ... on Wikipedia, those words do not exist. Therefore, Wikinews could actually copy entire Wikipedia articles (if we considered them a reliable source). That's the one way. But if you insist the licenses apply to templates, etc. (which it doesn't) you would have to admit we can copy/change/use things from Wikipedia. Is it clear yet? --SVTCobra 04:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- 223. is right: you can't use CC-BY-SA content relicensed under CC-BY, otherwise the original intent of the creator in licensing it under CC-BY-SA is lost. You can take BY content and release a modified copy under BY-SA, but not vice versa, otherwise the SA clause would have no purpose. This does seem like a fairly trivial issue though since (a) this template isn't actually in use on the wiki, (b) a similar template could be written locally, and (c) we could just change how Wikinews deals with copyright by stating that some very limited, behind-the-scenes BY-SA stuff like this could be adopted on Wikinews so long as we have a template on the description page saying "this isn't BY, it's BY-SA, treat as appropriate". This seems like a storm in a teacup: there is a copyright problem, but there are simple ways to fix it. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining, Tom Morris. Re BY vs BY-SA; having few pages under different license would not be good idea, brings discontinuity, and would appear shady. I remember there was a proposal regarding having all Wikimedia projects under same license (BY-SA [4.0?]) But BY-SA is not as open/free as BY, and if Wikinews wants to shift to a lesser open/free license, which I don’t support, it would surely take time and discussion. Re twelve years experience, others can be aware of the things, too.
223.237.255.164 (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)- Technically, {{Ambox}} and perhaps, its derivative {{xambox}} are also copied from Wikipedia, and therefore I created (and suggested) {{msgbox}}.
223.237.255.164 (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC) - On a side note, notice Wikidata’s (CC 0) delete template is different from Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 3.0).
223.237.255.164 (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Technically, {{Ambox}} and perhaps, its derivative {{xambox}} are also copied from Wikipedia, and therefore I created (and suggested) {{msgbox}}.
- Thank you for explaining, Tom Morris. Re BY vs BY-SA; having few pages under different license would not be good idea, brings discontinuity, and would appear shady. I remember there was a proposal regarding having all Wikimedia projects under same license (BY-SA [4.0?]) But BY-SA is not as open/free as BY, and if Wikinews wants to shift to a lesser open/free license, which I don’t support, it would surely take time and discussion. Re twelve years experience, others can be aware of the things, too.
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Since this has been nominated for deletion, I think all parties (including @Tom Morris:), should make their comments there. But, I will be sure to address the concerns anyway. --SVTCobra 12:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)