www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Wikipedia Content
Date Mon, 01 Dec 2014 05:21:59 GMT
The app (Tour De Flex) is here http://flex.apache.org/tourdeflex/index.html

Click on “Apache Flex Components and Features” then click on “Apache Flex 4.8” or
any of the other releases.

Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Flex

Tour De Flex is a collection of examples, but the text copied from wikipedia isn’t really
a part of a collection of text copied from other places.


From: Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org<mailto:bayard@apache.org>>
Reply-To: ASF Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Date: Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM
To: ASF Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>,
Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content

I said 'strong' because the GPL also identifies separate & independent works as not being
derived/adaptions. They seem akin in their copyleftness.

From the original mail:

"Apache Flex wants to copy content from that page and display it in an app."

Baking the content in an application did not, without more information, sound like a separate
& independent work to me. i.e it doesn't sound like a collection in the final product.


On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com>>
Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft license" in reference
to CC-SA.

Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The CC-SA license provides
that "a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose
of this License." It says this twice to make sure that nobody will confuse this license with
early GPL language!

The following definitions in CC-SA are important:

  1.  "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing
works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations
of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations
or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any
form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection
will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of
doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of
the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation
for the purpose of this License.
  2.  "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias
and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter
other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement
of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its
entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting
separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective
whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined
below) for the purposes of this License.


From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org<mailto:bayard@apache.org>]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content

If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app? It's always seemed
a very strong copyleft license to me.


On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <luis@lu.is<mailto:luis@lu.is>> wrote:
653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.


[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net> wrote:
For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors,


On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:

I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of content (e.g.
your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content would be fine, provided you meet
the attribution requirements.

View raw message