| rdfs:comment | - Danny "Monorail Guy" Toughpigs said above that, and I quote: Wikis on Wikia operate under GFDL, a free license that allows people to reuse the content in any way, as long as it's under the same license and links back to the original source. Wikia provides complete database dumps for anybody who wants them, so it's easy for people to move the content somewhere else if they want to. The moved content should link back to the original wiki, using a template like this. The GDFL itself can be seen on this Wikipedia page. Frankly, my head's spinning, but three things leap to the eye:
|
| abstract | - Danny "Monorail Guy" Toughpigs said above that, and I quote: Wikis on Wikia operate under GFDL, a free license that allows people to reuse the content in any way, as long as it's under the same license and links back to the original source. Wikia provides complete database dumps for anybody who wants them, so it's easy for people to move the content somewhere else if they want to. The moved content should link back to the original wiki, using a template like this. The GDFL itself can be seen on this Wikipedia page. The relevant sections, as far as I can see, are Sections 1 ("APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS), 2 ("VERBATIM COPYING") and 4 ("MODIFICATIONS"). I've also looked at wikipedia:Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations for a simpler version (since Wikipedia & Wikia both use the GDFL, the requirements are identical). Frankly, my head's spinning, but three things leap to the eye: 1.
* There is no specific, explicit requirement to link to the original page (transformers.wikia.com/wiki/PAGENAME). There are specific requirements to make to licence your modifications under the GFDL, make that clear & link to it; make a "Transparent copy" (machine readable, copyable by other users) available; and to acknowledge the authorship of the article. Wikipedia suggests that one way to "partially fulfill" the latter is to "provid[e] a conspicuous direct link back to the Wikipedia article", but also notes that they reserve the right to delete the page & authorship history, and that wouldn't be enough in such a case. It suggests that an alternative is to preserve the page history, and to list the five most prominent authors (all, if <5) on the "title page"/top of the document. 2.
* If you do, answers.com - a prominent content aggregator, including from Wikipedia, has their notice in small letters in the page footer. 3.
* If it is necessary, it may only be necessary to do it on the history page. Someone else's reading would be appreciated, to see if I'm talking absolute gibberish. - SanityOrMadness talk page 17:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Worth noting: we'll be importing the entire revision history, not just the current status of the page. So we don't have to link to anywhere to reflect that; it'll be on the wiki itself. I definitely like the idea of putting it on the history page-- our original thought was to put it in the footer, like your answers.com example-- but that works even better. --Suki Brits 06:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Answers.com, however, is taking the content wholesale and representing it. And they were nto the authors of it. Between us, the current TT1 userbase has the ORIGINAL rights to about 90% of the text on the wiki (the other 10% having been written by incidental people unaware of the move, and Rotty.) We could take those articles and leave without ever having to worry about GDFL-- just like McFeely ported the articles he wrote for Wikipedia about Cyclonus and Devastator over to here. He owned the full rights to them INDEPENDENT of their GDFL thing. IMAGES include a 'auto uploaded by script...' in the page history when imported. I don't remember if normal pages do. If they DO... then we could probably modify the import script to specifically say Wikia.com, which would satisfy the legal obligation. (I'll check with Suki.) -Derik 17:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Normal pages don't, because there wouldn't be anywhere for the script to include it. The entire normal edit history is imported, so you get all the edit summaries. And... for what it's worth, unfortunately, I would imagine we would NEED the permission of that other 10% to get away with not mentioning Wikia somewhere, and unfortunately, that's a huge clusterfuck and not worth it. Especially since the fine print giving mention (not even a link) to our original host would be sufficient. --Suki Brits 03:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
|
