User talk:Joelevi

August, 2008[edit]

I've removed your addition to Basketball as you seem to have simply cut & pasted the entire block of text from the given source. Please do not do this in the future; you can read our policy on copyright here. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye out for copyright violations. This, however, does not violate copyright. Wikipedia states "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license." This, Wikipedia continues requires that:

   * All previous authors of the work must be attributed.
   * All changes to the work must be logged.
   * All derivative works must be licensed under the same license.
   * The full text of the license, unmodified invariant sections as defined by the author if any, and any other added warranty disclaimers (such as a general disclaimer alerting readers that the document may not be accurate for example) and copyright notices from previous versions must be maintained.
   * Technical measures such as DRM may not be used to control or obstruct distribution or editing of the document.

The content in question is covered by a Creative Commons attribution license. I cited each section which is within the scope of the CC license on the content. I've reverted the article back to prior to your deletion of the content.

Joe Levi 17:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your very cordial response, Joe. I'm sorry to quibble, but the license used on that page is "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0"; the non-commercial clause would appear to be wholly incompatible with the GFDL. If this is your page, you can simply drop the non-commercial section of the license. If this is not your page, you can drop the author a note requesting waiver or permission to re-license.

I can certainly be wrong in my reading; the various licenses can be a little convoluted. At your request, I can drop a note with other administrators with more in depth experience in that field for a second or third opinion. I would beg that you please not re-add the material until we're both in agreement; and thank you for your patience. Kuru ^talk 23:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One further note; I did indeed miss the original creative commons note at the bottom of that page, so my original accusation of a blatant copyright violation was incorrect and unwarranted. The quibble above is a different issue, and you have my apologies for that first note. Kuru ^talk 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru, I have a great deal of influence over the site in question and cited use of the content in the context of Wikipedia is acceptable. They cannot drop the non-commercial clause but could add an exemption for cited/attributed use on Wikipedia. Do you feel that would satisfy the GDFL? My reading of Wikipedia's requirements (noted above) don't specifically excluded CC-NC licenses, but that's just their summary. Also, should we keep our discussion here or move it to the Basketball Talk page? Joe Levi 15:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)