Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
On the Talk:Amarillo Design Bureau page, a question (way back in 2007) regarding possible copy-vio arose. The issue was the text was identical to Wikipedia's article of the same name. The matter was closed when it turned out the same person had written both articles.
Pardon me for "resurrecting" a long-dead issue, but isn't that still a copy-vio because of the different licenses used? I thought that, even if the same person wrote it, once it's on Wikipedia, it gets the GPL(?), which is incompatible with the CCL-NC used here. So which copyright would the text have? If it's released on WP, wouldn't its license supersede ours and open MA's text for possible violation of the CCL-NC? I doubt any harm would arise from that article (and its WP version has probably since been revised) – still, the settlement left me confused: I had thought a principal reason for not permitting the use (and more importantly, vice versa) of the non-copyrighted text from WP was the difference in licenses (and obviously the laziness/uniqueness factor). ?
Couldn't someone (potentially) "abuse" an MA article if it's duplicated on WP, even if the same author wrote it? Or is that not even plausible and an invalid question? — Cepstrum (talk) 14:31, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a violation if the same person wrote it and posted it to both places.
- The author released it here with a CC-By-NC license, so if someone takes it from MA, that's the terms they take it under.
- The author released it on WP with the GFDL, so if someone takes it from MA, that is the terms they take it under.
- Where any problems arise is when someone adds a buttload of stuff to the WP article and then someone else adds that information (verbatim) here. Or vice versa. Those are copy-vios. The original is not.
- As such, your question at the end isn't really valid. The article has two licenses, neither supersedes the other, since each license only applies to the one specific location. -- sulfur 14:56, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Sulfur. Just trying to ensure clarity about the rather confusing/arcane details re copyright policy: hope you don't mind me bothering you with the invalid question.
BTW: your explanations-by-examples were very insightful. Perhaps something similar could be on the Copyright policy page as a "For Dummies"/laymen guide. I now do see the text there contains an implicit reference to what you said, but the practical examples allowed me (at least) to apprehend it. Thanks again! — Cepstrum (talk) 16:08, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Contrary to what you've just said, sulfur, I was always told by the WP staff that articles I'd written on the X-Files wiki (which also operates under the CC-By-NC license) could be copied to WP verbatim, without even my knowledge, and it'd still be legit, which I personally thought was very unfair; it's why I left that wiki, prior to working on the Voyager articles here! --Defiant 01:12, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
- CC-by-NC cannot be used under a CC-by-SA license (and vice-versa), so whoever told you that was full of a lack of knowledge. :) -- sulfur 15:05, August 10, 2011 (UTC)