www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Wenk <andyw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: What is ASF position on documentation plagiarism?
Date Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:50:33 GMT
On 23 July 2015 at 18:37, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlieu.7@gmail.com> wrote:

> The definition of  "plagiarism", in college definition of the word, is
> when the author quotes(or should i say, cut-and-pastes) a lot of foreign
> content  without attribution, in this case required by A2. By placing his
> name on the book, and nothing else added, he basically says "I wrote
> (created) this and I have a copyright on this." As it is actually exactly
> stated on the copyright page of the book. As it is mentioned in A2 FAQ, the
> user of A2 license cannot state "I created this". Much less claim exclusive
> content copyright. In this sense, A2 would be violated won't it? Well let
> us call it "omission".
> Nowhere there was a claim the content cannot be copied though, in fact,
> wider dissemination of content should be and is our goal. As long as
> reference to where content is taken from is given.

and I say you are correct. It IS plagiarism. Because as you stated in your
original email, content was copy and pasted without marking it as a quote
and without placing the required trademark attributions anywhere. So why is
it so complicated? It is stolen - FIN.

The only thing you can do is hoping, that the author is comprehensible and
is willing to add the required trademark attributions. We, at the CouchDB
project are more often faced with situations like this. We do not have a
registered trademark but we are an ASF project and therefore we ask the
people to add the trademark attributions. Most of the time we are lucky. If
not, we are on the way to write a section somewhere public to state, that
these people are using CouchDB but not willing to work together with the
CouchDB community (say the creators of the software with all the
specialised knowledge). Who will be interested to work with them then?
Hopefully nobody.

All the best


P.S.: To make one thing clear: no - we are not planing to create a list of

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> As mentioned on the 'Fwd: Apparent plagiarism from Mahout site' thread,
>> unless specifically stated otherwise, doccos and content from the
>> ASF sites are licensed under the ALv2. So as long as they are
>> compliant w/ the terms and conditions of the license (basically,
>> ack'ing Apache as the source of the content in this case), there
>> is no problem.
>> It is NOT, in any case, 'plagiarism'... it is license compliance.
>> > On Jul 21, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlyubimov@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > our project has uncovered evidence that one of publishers has recently
>> published a book full of rampant plagiarism of our project manual. There is
>> a chapter where almost all examples are copied word for word from examples
>> in our manual. So are most comments to them. The book inherited even our
>> occasional style problems, so cut-and-paste action cannot be called into
>> question. All material is taken from ASF website.
>> >
>> > Aside from obvious ethical concerns, my understanding is Apache 2.0
>> license is ok with verbatim quoting as long as attribution is made. I
>> assume Apache 2.0 is also automatically applicable to all ASF web and
>> documentation content as well. I found no indication of such attribution
>> (aside from the fact that the book alleges to teach how to use our project).
>> >
>> > What's position of ASF in such cases?
>> >
>> > Feel free to contact us for further details if needed.
>> >
>> > Thank you.
>> >
>> > -Dmitriy
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany

GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588


View raw message