2011/8/26 Strainu <[email protected]>: > Assumptions: we are talking about a single version of the page with > only one or just a few authors, and all authors have accepted to > release the data in the public domain.
As I said before, I am targeting only a very specific subset of pages, where contacting the authors won't be a problem. 2011/8/26 WereSpielChequers <[email protected]>: > > It might be easier to persuade whatever the organisation it is that insists > on PD to broaden their stance and become compatible with us. Actually, this is about handling the import of Wiki Loves Monuments data in OSM. Kolossos raised this on a OSM list: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-license-for-quot-Wiki-Loves-Monuments-quot-td6363317.html OSM is currently trying to get away from CCBYSA. :) I'm inssiting on PD instead of ODBL because I find it easier to explain the concept to the other contributors that send them to read the text of yet another license. 2011/8/26 Fae <[email protected]>: > Sounds a little problematic depending on the details. If the text was > released on Wikipedia first, then the contributors agreed "to release > your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License". If the all the > authors of the article can identify themselves as the same people who > contributed under the named accounts for the original Wikipedia > article then release to PD is no problem, in practice few articles > only have a history of contributors who are using accounts associated > with their legal identities. That's precisely why I asked the question. The WMF have a procedure for that, but other entities don't (or I'm not aware of it). Strainu _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
