Talk:Catacomb Church/Archive 1

Copyright issues

RELEASE AGREEMENT THEORTHODOX.ORG and it's Administration authorize “OrthodoxWiki” (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org) and “Wikipedia” (http://www.wikipedia.org) to use this material through the WEB site for educational and informational purposes only. The permission granted by Archbishop Alexy on May 25, 2006. Unique user 20:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't sufficient. For us to use this material it needs to be licensed under the GFDL. --Nick Boalch\^talk 10:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nick. Why is it insufficient? I did not create the page and am not a lawyer, but a release seems to be a release. They are releasing the page to be used under the GNU public license. I reverted your deletion. Perhaps you could leave the page alone until a legal expert comments. Also, perhaps Unique user could discuss changing the copyright with the page owners. It seems to be a strange page to copyright and if they are concerned, they can make application to have us remove the content. --Walter Görlitz 15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

One additional point upon further reflection. The site's owners are fully aware of us. Why else would they make a direct comment about Wikipedia on their page and link to the Wikipedia site? This implies that they know how to find us. If they know how to find us, they can certainly fithe page created by Unique user that pulls material right off their site. If they have a concern that we have gone outside of what they feel is fair use outside of their release, they have the right to take action (as mentioned above). Until they do take action, they have released the page to us and we can do with it as we choose. --Walter Görlitz 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Walter. The point is that they haven't released the page to be used under the GFDL. They have released it, per the statement on their page, 'for educational and informational purposes only'. Textual material in Wikipedia has to be available for use for all those who wish to reuse our content. --Nick Boalch\^talk 17:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick. The point is that they HAVE released the page to be used on Wikipedia. Leave it to the legal experts sir. --Walter Görlitz 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Their statement permits the content to be used only by Wikipedia, not any of our content reusers, and only 'for educational and informational purposes'. This is not compatible with our licensing model. --Nick Boalch\^talk 19:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

(Incidentally, if someone wants to write to them and get them to license the material under the GFDL, then that would be fine, we can use the content. But if they want to impose 'only Wikipedia' or 'for educational purposes only' restrictions, we can't use the content. --Nick Boalch\^talk 19:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

I have requested that the original creator of this page do just that. Until then, leave the page alone. There is no breach of their intent to release to Wikipedia. Their understanding is that it will be used to for information and I am following the spirit of their release. If you want to write to their lawyer to get legal clarification, feel free. Until then, honour their intention. --Walter Görlitz 19:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Their intention as currently expressed is for the material to be available only to Wikipedia and 'for educational and informational purposes' only. This is not compatible with our licensing model, the next is not licensed under the GFDL, and therefore it cannot be included. When they confirm that they have released the text under the GFDL, I will happily leave it alone. Until then it cannot be distributed in Wikipedia. --Nick Boalch\^talk 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I could never imagine that this article could bring such a discussion like this one. When we released this article to be used on WIKIPEDIA, we believed that this would be useful to other people and that it would be used for educational and informational purposes. Like in New Testament, Jesus Christ said: “Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one”. (Matthew 5:37), we believed that our ‘Yes’ would be enough.Twice I emailed your legal department asking what could be done to fix the copyright problem you claim there is but, I never received a response. Three times I changed our “Release Agreement” on our server (http://theorthodox.org), and that was not enough. Nick Boalch has continuously blocked this article and the only person trying to help us in this matter was Walter Görlitz, who we appreciate for supporting us and really trying to help. Walter, thank you very much for explaining what “wikifying” is, I hope I did it right this time. :) I appresiate your patiance and time that you gave us.Now, back to the business, we will take out “for educational and informational purposes” from our server (http://theorthodox.org) ...would this be enough to end this battle? --Unique user 02:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Unique User. I'm sorry that you seem to be upset with me, but I am simply trying to do my job as a sysop on this encyclopaedia. Though it perhaps doesn't seem like it to you, this involves both protecting Wikipedia's copyright position and yours. The restrictions that you've tried to impose suggest that you don't fully understand the implications of releasing material under the GNU Free Documentation License, and I want to make sure that you know what you're doing before you do it. In this way, both Wikipedia and you are protected.

I'm afraid that the statement on the website is still contradictory. Are you aware that licensing this material under the GFDL means that the material can be reused by absolutely anyone, for any purpose? This means that licensing the text under the GFDL is not just a case of releasing it 'to be used on Wikipedia': rather you are releasing it to be used by anyone, for anything they want to do with it.

If you can confirm that you are happy for this to be the case, I will gladly take down the copyright violation notice. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the release has now been edited I suggest we drop the copy vio at the earliest possible convenience. As I assumed all along, they release was meant to mean a complete an total release. --Walter Görlitz 05:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Per my comments above the statement on their site is still contradictory. I want to make sure they know what they're doing before we drop the notice. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, now it comes to the point and you call me idiot. Thanks. You are suggesting that we are too stupid to understand what we are doing. How arrogant! So, let me tell you this, Nick, I understand that this is simple text, not my liver, I am giving to WIKIPEDIA, and you or anyone else here or in KGB could do whatewher you wish to do with it. --Unique user 14:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that you are too stupid to understand what you are doing. I'm suggesting that your previous statements about the licensing of your text were contradictory, meaning that we were not able to accurately understand your intentions. Indeed, the copyright statement currently on your website is still contradictory. By licensing the text under the GFDL you are essentially giving the text to everyone, not just Wikipedia. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nick. Please stop opposing this entry. You have no legal standing with Wikipedia and the release appears to be quite valid. It currently reads We authorize “OrthodoxWiki” (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org) and “Wikipedia” (http://www.wikipedia.org) to use this material through the WEB site under GFDL, GNU Free Documentation License as well as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.. If you can't explain why a release to the GNU Free Document License isn't valid from a legal perspective then don't comment. Please explain why the release is not valid using case law only. --Walter Görlitz 14:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, then, here is the copyright statement currently on the source website. I have highlighted the statements that are not compatible with the GFDL.

Copyright 2002- 2006 by RTOC-MM: DNA & BLAGO. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission from BLAGO is prohibited! We authorize “OrthodoxWiki” (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org) and “Wikipedia” (http://www.wikipedia.org) to use this material through the WEB site under GFDL, GNU Free Documentation License as well as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.

Hopefully this should make it absolutely clear what the problem is here. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, although as Walter has taken great pains to point out at every possible opportunity I am not a lawyer, it is my assumption that Wikipedia's use of this material would be acceptably covered simply by removing the statement 'through the web site' from the copyright statement. As far as I know there is nothing preventing a copyright holder licensing a work to Wikipedia under the GFDL while continuing to maintain a version of the same work elsewhere under a different license.

(Just to be clear: Wikipedia content is or has the potential to be distributed through other media than this web site, which is why the phrase 'through the web site' is problematic.)

However, the contradictions in the statement still do make it a little unclear that unrestricted commercial use of the material is actually what the copyright holder wants here. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify. You are not opposed to this page for any legal reason. The release appears to be quite valid to me. Your argument was not legal or based on the law. You also don't have a law degree and can't address this from a legal, case law stance. You have no more standing in this discussion than I do. I trust that we can both leave this discussion alone and leave it to the legal experts to decide. --Walter Görlitz 15:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As you are quite aware, I am not opposed to this page in the slightest, and I will be happy to see its content in Wikipedia if we can license it appropriately. I am opposed to Wikipedia using text that is not licensed under the GFDL, because that is a fundamental Wikipedia policy. I am also opposed to copyright holders licensing text under the GFDL without fully understanding the implications, which has the potential to lead to unfortunate misunderstandings. I am also opposed to the constant snipings and personal attacks you have used during the course of this discussion to try to get your way. I am also opposed to the fact that you are never prepared to step back from a discussion and admit that you got something wrong. Clear? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No Nick. I am not aware that you are opposed to the page. Your opposition appears to be centred clearly on this page and how it seems to breach the copyright on an external page despite it having a release to Wikipedia. Since the page is released to be licensed under the GFDL. So please stop your uninformed, from a legal point of view, opposition. Also, you don't know whether the owner of that external page does or does not understand what they are doing, but the owner has stated that you think he is an idiot, and I have to agree that your uninformed opposition has made claims that appear to back this position. --Walter Görlitz 16:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As I have now pointed out many times, the copyright statement on the external page is contradictory. I have also pointed out exactly what steps could be taken to resolve these contradictions (either license the whole page under the GFDL, removing the contradictory statements; or, alternatively, remove the 'through the web site' phrase which attempts to impose restrictions on use of the page under the GFDL). I don't see how I can be any clearer about what the problem is here and how it can be resolved. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A release this plain and simple should be honoured. --Walter Görlitz 16:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And we will be happy to honour it once its inherent contradictions are resolved. Given the messy argument on this page, I have left a message on Unique user's talk page attempting to summarise the problem and possible solutions. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 17:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the text on the theorthodox.org. And one more thing, after we solve the problem, can we delete this conversation? It’s very sad and has nothing to do with the history of Orthodox Church.--Unique user 17:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much -- I've removed the copyright violation notice accordingly. I suggest we leave this discussion in place for a few days so that any parties checking up can follow what happened, but then we can safely archive the talk page. It would still be available, but as a separate linked page rather than the first thing people see when they click 'discussion'. Does this sound ok?--ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 17:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds fine. One more thing, I would like to ask everybody’s forgiveness. I really didn’t mean this to happen. --Unique user 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone can see that what we had here was a case of mutual misunderstanding rather than malice on anyone's side! --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 17:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nick. I don't see it as a mistunderstanding on your part. I tried to explain that it was a misunderstanding over and over and you argued and argued that I was wrong. When that happens it appears to be either ignorant or maclicious. --Walter Görlitz 20:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, Walter. I'm not going to continue to waste my time on you because, unlike you, I have respect for our policy of civility. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen:

1. the statement is contradictory, but it includes the clause that takes WP off the hook in any case. It says: "GFDL". Period. If it also says other stuff, that contradicts GFDL, the GFDL statement is a sufficient defense in any hypothetical lawsuite which, as is clear to anyone here, will not happen anyway.
2. The article has been sufficiently edited and will be edited even further away from the original text. I know many editors who would rush into taking part in it.

With that, I suggest we close the copyright issue (I will archive it next) and move on to the content discussion and editing. --Irpen 05:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)