Battlestar Wiki talk:Derivative Works
I would like to note that while using Wikipedia's FAQs, Help documentation, etc. does not bother me, I do not think that we should use GFDL work in main content articles. This is for three reasons, which I earlier listed at Talk:Basestar (TOS).
- CC-NC-SA work from the rest of the wiki cannot be incorporated into a GFDL article due to the NC clause.
- Portions of this article cannot be used elsewhere in the wiki for the same reason.
- Multiple licenses for different pages is very confusing, as we have just demonstrated.
In general, I don't believe that single articles derived from GFDL sources constitutes an inherent license violation, since it can be made clear that the works are not being relicensed under the CCL. However, the possibility that a naive user could accidentally create a license violation by migrating CCL content into a GFDL article, or vice versa, is highly troubling to me, and I feel that the best remedy is simply to avoid bringing GFDL work onto the main content area of Battlestar Wiki in the first place.
Additionally, if GFDL articles are to remain permissible in the main content area, it must be made clear that any contributions to them are also released under the GFDL, not solely the CCL as is the case for the rest of the site.
I am aware that this is not currently a policy, but would like to see the matter addressed formally. --Peter Farago 23:06, 9 January 2006 (EST)
- Noted. The articles you reverted that I edited or derived some time ago were done before you clarified with me the differences between the CCL and the GDFL. I particularly do not care whether someone writes an original work based on these sources, so long as it's not verbatim and from a published commercial work. A biography should not be a copyrightable work, however, except in the actual wording done by a particular person. Perhaps we need to clarify the HOW of using what "cannot be used" in the literal sense. I've been watching and trying to determine the legality of using screencaps from a private web site that Ltcrashdown was suggesting as he worked on TOS pages, keeping in mind what you've reminded me of in the past, so I agree. There should be an article that is obvious to find snd shows examples of what can and cannot be copied for or from this wiki. --Spencerian 23:23, 9 January 2006 (EST)
- I don't think the screenshots are as important in issue, since Universal is still the sole copyright holder no matter who captures and hosts the image. I agree that we need a clear guiding policy on this. --Peter Farago 23:27, 9 January 2006 (EST)