Traxus talk:General disclaimer

From Traxus

Jump to: navigation, search

"Again, only the original interpretation and representation here of the information contained in Marathon is our doing, and anyone who says or does otherwise is a liar and a cheat."

What does that mean? Is it saying that what is written here is not an official interpretation? I am confused... --MrHen

I don't think I ever noticed this to respond to. Sorry. --Ecpeterson 15:41, 2 October 2007 (CDT)

Contents

October 2007 version

...seems ungrammatical, or at least difficult to parse. Is "as such copyrights belong to their respective owners" a sentence?

Also: Does "maintainers" mean just administrators and not contributors, so we can't copy text from here to other wikis? --Andrew Nagy 13:01, 2 October 2007 (CDT)

"as such" is interchangeable with "by consequence" here, and is grammatical, though maybe your confusion about the second sentence clouded your interpretation of the first. I (and doy, and whoever else we might pick up along the way) have the right to host your contributions here, and elsewhere if we so choose (e.g. if the site changes addresses), without asking you (i.e. your permission is implicit in your contribution). Giving us permission to do that doesn't mean you give up your copyright to the material, and so your contributions are still yours as well, and you're free to do with them as you please. Is this clearer? Is there any part of that sentiment that isn't present (or is too implicit) in the disclaimer? --Ecpeterson 15:41, 2 October 2007 (CDT)
That does seem to leave open the question of who owns a sentence that's been reworded by multiple people. --Andrew Nagy 12:58, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
also, yes, as written it does mean that you can't copy other people's text from here to other wikis, though really i hadn't thought about that at all. would you (since basically you and mrhen together count as majority here) like that changed? --Ecpeterson 15:55, 2 October 2007 (CDT)
On the other hand, then it basically becomes "anyone can copy the material anywhere". Can you have that and still have it be copyrighted?
I guess the alternative would just require you to pass the site onto someone if you move to another hobby. Or possibly just accept that if you disappear and someone wants to start another marawiki, either they'll have to start from scratch or they'll ignore the disclaimer and nobody will care, neither of which would be all that bad. --Andrew Nagy 13:21, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
Ignoring the disclaimer seems reasonable since it'd be in the best interests of the community, though I can't honestly see a turn of events so drastic that I would disappear without leaving this in someone's care. --Ecpeterson 17:28, 15 October 2007 (CDT)
Hmm, I never noticed this. Sorry. I really do not care if someone copies articles that I helped create but see it as bad form. At least paraphrase it... That being said, I have no qualms. A link back to this wiki would be nice, though. MrHen. 11:21, 24 December 2007 (CST)
Just to have it on record: I also don't care if my contributions are copied. --Andrew Nagy 04:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer on the article editor

Quote: "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Project:Copyrights for details). DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" This should probably be modified to mention that posting game/scenario terminals/manuals/hint books/etcetera verbatim is fine, as long as they're properly attributed. --Andrew Nagy 11:45, 15 October 2007 (CDT)

This is a good point, and I'll update it. --Ecpeterson 17:28, 15 October 2007 (CDT)

Copying from elsewhere

If I want to copy text here from a collaborative work like Bungiepedia or Wikipedia (and I'm certain I'm allowed to do it under that work's copyright(s)), is it necessary to post a complete list of the original contributors? Can I just include the page's URL in the edit summary and call that appropriate crediting? --Andrew Nagy 19:52, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

That sounds like appropriate crediting to me, especially if their wiki software has a history feature where you can easily see all the people that have contributed to a particular article. The point of Traxus is not to mirror copyright information, and I'm more than happy to let that be hosted elsewhere, even at the risk of it getting lost. (Frankly, if it gets lost, who's going to be upset that we have it?) --Ecpeterson 00:49, 17 October 2007 (CDT)
If you copy it, it should be in quotes. If you paraphrase it, a citation seems fitting. MrHen. 11:17, 24 December 2007 (CST)
Don't be so certain so fast. Wikia projects like Bungiepedia and Wikipedia are licensed under the GFDL which prohibits distribution under any terms other than the GFDL. Since our contributor license is not the GFDL, technically it is a violation of copyright law for someone to copy content from such a project to here. (This is why copyleft licenses suck and are not truly free). That said, certain limited reproduction may fall under fair use and so copyright law in those cases would not be applicable. Pfhorrest 16:04, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Reorganization

I think this page needs some cleanup, and some additional content.

There are three things that we need to say about copyrights and licenses: what we require work contributed to us to be licensed as (our "contribution license"), a reminder to people NOT to contribute anything that they are not legally allowed to contribute, and under what license the content of this site is distributed to the reader (our "distribution license"). Right now, the first two are sort of jumbled up together, and the third is missing altogether. Here is my critique and recommended changes:

1st sentence: "By contributing to this site, you agree to grant this site's present and future maintainers an unlimited, perpetual license to publish, distribute and modify your contributions as they see fit." Generally good (though of course I'd say that, I pretty much wrote it myself); but I think "publish" and "distribute" are redundant, and for convention's sake "modify" should be listed first. Thus:

"By contributing to this site, you agree to grant this site's present and future maintainers an unlimited, perpetual license to modify and distribute your contributions as they see fit."

I think the 3rd & 4th sentences should follow immediately after that: "You are not required or requested to give up your ownership of the submitted creative property. By consequence, copyrights of applicable material belong to their respective owners (Bungie, Microsoft, individual contributors, the public domain, etcetera)." But I think this needs some rewording. The first of these two sentences has the problem that there is no such legal concept as "creative property", so we should say copyright specifically; and I gather the function of this sentence is to assuage contributors that they are not giving us copyright of their work, so the sentence should be rephrased that way. Thus, "This license does not constitute a transfer of copyright." That is short enough that it can be tacked on to the start of the next sentence with a semicolon. For the next sentence, I think "consequentially" reads better than "by consequence"; "material" should be plural "materials"; "belong to" should be "remain with" to emphasize again that copyright is not being transferred; the list of examples should begin with "e.g." (exempli gratia, roughly "for example") to be clear that these are examples of who copyright might belong to, rather than who we're declaring copyright to belong to; "the public domain" should be removed from that list entirely since there is no such entity to hold a copyright, public domain content is just non-copyrighted; and "et cetera" (which is two words by the way) should be "et al" when your list is of people rather than things. (et cetera means "and things", et alia means "and others"). Thus:

"This license does not constitute a transfer of copyright; consequentially, copyrights of applicable materials remain with their respective owners (e.g. Bungie, Microsoft, individual contributors, et al)."

That covers the first of the three issues this page needs to address, our contribution license. Now on to the next part: obey the law, stupid. Right now we have a sentence, currently our second sentence on this page, covering this issue. It reads: "All submitted material must either be entirely the work of the submitter, or be credited appropriately in adherence with international copyright law." Technically attribution is not something we need to be worrying about here, at least not in particular. The issue is not whether it is attributed properly but whether the contributor has permission to distribute his materials to us under the license that we are insisting upon. Thus, I think a much simpler way of saying this is just to ask straightforwardly:

"Please do not contribute materials to this site which you are not authorized to distribute under this license."

These three sentences together capture everything on our disclaimer page thus far; and in fact, I think the "obey the law stupid" part should actually be grouped in with the contribution license section, since it deals with contributions to the site; even if it's not actually a part of the license but just a reminder to obey the law.

Now the really big question that needs discussion before I can really draft anything is this: under what terms do we wish to distribute these materials? When someone sends something to us, that is one act of distribution, licensed however it may be; but when we send things out to our readers, that is another act of distribution, which may be licensed differently (unless we were not authorized to distribute materials under a different license, which copyleft licenses make explicit). Since I don't support "intellectual property" law at all, my preference would be to make our distribution license the same as our contribution license; something along the lines of:

"Likewise, the contents of this site are distributed to you, the reader, under an unlimited, perpetual license to modify and distribute as you see fit. This license does not constitute a transfer of copyright; consequentially, copyrights of applicable materials remain with their respective owners (e.g. Bungie, Microsoft, individual contributors, et al)."

But that's really up to the maintainers of this site to decide; this is just my recommendation.

A footnote: I think our contribution license is short enough that it could replace the third and fourth sentences at the bottom of this edit page here; so the edit page would then read something like:

"Please note that all contributions to Traxus may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. By contributing to this site, you agree to grant this site's present and future maintainers an unlimited, perpetual license to modify and distribute your contributions as they see fit. This license does not constitute a transfer of copyright; consequentially, copyrights of applicable materials remain with their respective owners (e.g. Bungie, Microsoft, individual contributors, et al). PLEASE DO NOT CONTRIBUTE MATERIALS TO THIS SITE WHICH YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO DISTRIBUTE UNDER THIS LICENSE."

Pfhorrest 17:00, 19 February 2008 (CST)

It occurs to me that if you do decide make the distribution license the same as the contribution license, it would be best to eliminate the redundant phrase about not transferring copyrights. Also, it occurs to me that given the terms of this license, transferability to future maintainers is redundant; and also that we should explicitly name the recipient in the contribution license (The Traxus Project). And also, for legal purposes, our list of examples is unnecessary, and so for brevity should probably be eliminated. (Technically the second two sentences are legally unnecessary as well, but they're good information for the contributors). Thus, the final thing might read:
"By contributing to this site, you agree to grant The Traxus Project an unlimited, perpetual license to modify and distribute your contributions as they see fit. Likewise, the contents of this site are distributed under an unlimited, perpetual license to modify and distribute as the recipient sees fit. This license does not constitute a transfer of copyright; consequentially, copyrights of applicable materials remain with their respective owners. PLEASE DO NOT CONTRIBUTE MATERIALS WHICH YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO DISTRIBUTE UNDER THIS LICENSE."
Sound good? Pfhorrest 04:27, 20 February 2008 (CST)
It does sound good, though I'll probably drop the 'PLEASE' when I actually edit the article. I'll give it another day or two in case anyone has further comment. --Ecpeterson 14:17, 22 February 2008 (CST)
Ping? I'm gonna be bold and do this since you approve and it's been a week or two... -Pfhorrest 19:26, 5 March 2008 (CST)
Haha, yeah, this scrolled off the Recent Changes page and I completely forgot about it.  :) --Ecpeterson 00:38, 6 March 2008 (CST)
Personal tools