Talk:Nigel Roberts

License discussion
Permissible use from the Icannwiki page on Nigel Roberts.
 * Hi Jgreene1333, this will seem really dumb, but the Icannwiki is published under CC-BY-SA-4.0, which at the moment is not a compatible free license for importing text into Wikipedia. The legal team is reviewing it, but for now they've said that it is no-go. See WP:COMPLIC for the official word. So until they work that through, this article would need to be re-written or removed. Like I said, I know it doesn't make sense that it's not "free enough", but that's the position of the legal team at the moment. Crow  Caw  00:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Rewritten to avoid the Icannwiki content - should be rerun to avoid the copyright issue Jgreene1333 (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again Jgreene1333, and thanks for your understanding (and the kitten!). There's still a fair amount of the icannwiki text here. You can click THIS for a comparison in real-time (to the last saved edit) with the Icann page. Thanks! Crow  Caw  22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the copied text. It can be rewritten, but must be in the editor's own words – the facts and ideas can be taken from reliable sources but the (unless those sources happen to have a licence compatible with ours) the language, the form of expression, may not. Wikis are in any case almost invariably not reliable sources for our purposes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi .. I've worked on this page to show all the relevant references. . . for notability purposes. It shouldn't wholesale copy the ICANN stuff for now, but I presume that problem would go away if ICANNwiki release permission?? Sdeerhake (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If ICANWIKI changed their license from CC-BY-SA-4.0 to CC-BY-SA-3.0, then the license problem is solved. It is probably easier to just paraphrase that source rather than try to convince them to change their sitewide licensing model though. Crow  Caw  18:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)