True Orthodox Wiki talk:Copyright
Take note that if a user made edits to a page which is under CC-BY-NC/GFDL dual license, the terms of those licenses required that the user had to agree to at least one of them when publishing the edits. If two users edited the same page while agreeing to one but not both and they did not agree to the same one, then the two edits cannot coexist on the same page. I think dual licensing would be the best way to avoid headache. Eish (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I copied the Pascha, Pentecost and Gregory Palamas pages from OW and added new pictures. What's the procedure to make them compliant? I thought CC-BY-NC didn't have these problems? (Edit: all icons I used are pre-16th century. There is no way without visual modification for anyone to claim copyright.)--DnJosephSuaiden (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Most articles were copied, Father. So here is the situation: The licence on Orthodox Wiki is CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 Deed and that of Wikipedia is GFDL and CC-BY-SA 4.0 dual licensed. Both require us to release derived works under the same licence which we received it under. The dual licensing is a slight modification, we can either dual license again or pick one of the two. The Orthodox Wiki article was itself copied from Wikipedia initially in some cases, such as St. Palamas.
- Wikipedia makes it a bit easier to understand since they give a guideline here.
- To be fully compliant (and I will grant that not everyone does this on other wikis either, including the fact that Orthodox Wiki does not link the Wikipedia articles in all cases), we must with each article state the licence it is under and who the authors were. We do not have a full edit history of Wikipedia but linking to that history on Wikipedia should be fine as long as Wikipedia continues to exist; thereafter we would not be crediting the authors and thus in non-compliance. Same for Orthodox Wiki.
- The easiest thing to do right at the beginning when copying text, is to state in the edit reason where it was copied from. That creates a record that can be traced but it might not remain enough. Articles can also be deleted from other wikis, and the history with them. So I would personally recommend that we put something like this in the talk page of an article:
- This article incorporates text taken from the Orthodox Wiki article, which in turn was based on the Wikipedia article as it was on January 22, 2005. (Fetching that date from the edit history on the Orthodox Wiki article.) The following Wikipedia users contributed to the article: (I copy that list over the relevant date range from the Wikipedia article edit history and remove duplicates.)
- Jonathunder
- TOO
- Stan Shebs
- Bryan Derksen
- 213.133.219.104
- RedWolf
- 68.164.245.153
- Adam Bishop
- Jonel
- Dogface
- 128.55.19.148
- Aphaia
- Dogface
- Mkmcconn
- 212.144.212.183
- 65.95.21.153
- Montrealais
- Derek Ross
- Thereafter it was edited at this page by the following editors of Orthodox Wiki: (And I just copy the list of users from that history page as well.)
- This article incorporates text taken from the Orthodox Wiki article, which in turn was based on the Wikipedia article as it was on January 22, 2005. (Fetching that date from the edit history on the Orthodox Wiki article.) The following Wikipedia users contributed to the article: (I copy that list over the relevant date range from the Wikipedia article edit history and remove duplicates.)
- If we do this it's more work and slight overkill but completely futureproof—both those sites could go completely down and we'd still be crediting the authors as required by the licences. At the absolute, bare minimum we need the links.
- There is one last problem, in that WP is CC-BY-SA dual licence and OW is CC-BY-NC-SA. This could create a problem in edge cases because those two are incompatible, so technically one might be unable to exercise either (effectively forcing the text to be used under GFDL only). But I think that is enough hair-splitting for now. Eish (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
