Talk:Osmund Lewry

Source
Note that the original source of this article is not User:Thekohser but instead is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petrus_Damianus&oldid=314604818. Thatcher 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I pointed this out elsewhere, it's worth saying again here. What you say is true, if and only if you believe September 2009 comes before February 2009. -- Thekohser 02:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. In that case, however, the original author on MyWikiBiz needs to release the text under a compatible software license.  He could do that by contacting the WMF permissions email address, or by posting a note on some page on MyWikiBiz and then we can link to it here.  (his talk page, the article page, etc)  Right now it looks like Petrus Damianus plagiarized the copyright-protected work of Ockham.  I know someone who claims to be Ockham, but to prove it, Ockham has to post some kind of confirmation on MyWikiBiz. Thatcher 02:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reading the license information on MyWikiBiz seems to indicate that because this article was written in MWBs "Directory" space, Thekohser has the right to republish and relicense it (or more specifically, MyWikiBiz has that right). Nathan  T 03:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But Thekohser implied in the edit history that the page is not GFDL.  Triplestop  x3  03:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really relevant. Assuming that "fully sublicenseable" is interpreted to mean that MyWikiBiz can relicense the material using less restrictive terms, by submitting it to Wikipedia Greg has converted the content to cc-by-SA 3.0/GFDL. The edit submission box and Wikipedia's terms of use make it clear how submitted content is licensed, and extraneous notes can only provide an additional, less restrictive license (such as "This text is released into the public domain"). Nathan  T 03:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The original edit summary implies that Thekohser was the original author, and seems to say that it was not copied from anywhere else: Creating a new article, ab initio, from the ground up, with no assistance from any sort of sockpuppet who might have initials "P.D." Since we now know that it was copied from another site, that appears deceptive.    Will Beback    talk    03:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The original source is User:Ockham on MyWikiBiz. The copyright statement for MyWikiBiz says "Individual authors of Directory page content are solely responsible for their copyright and licensing considerations." Greg Kohs by his own documentation has no right to relicense the article.  Therefore User:Ockham needs to log on to MyWikiBiz and post a notice that the article is licensed under either GFDL or CC-BY-SA.  This is no different than downloading a picture from a Flickr account with the wrong permission; the owner needs to go on to Flickr and change the permission so we can confirm it. Assuming Peter Damian is the author, I will contact him about this. Thatcher 05:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirmed released under GFDL. Thatcher 11:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting - the introduction seem to directly contradict the rights retained by MyWikiBiz in the section dealing with directory space contributions. Moot in any case. Nathan  T 16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I love a good moot point, as long as it's not a moot WP:POINT! -- Thekohser 18:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My reading of that is that users who post to the Directory namespace grant certain rights to "MyWikiBiz"; however remember that MyWikiBiz is not the same as "Greg Kohs"—one is a web site and possibly a small business or corporation, and the other is a person who currently owns the small business. Suppose, for example, that Greg sold the web site to someone else.  The rights to reuse Directory material would transfer with the business, not remain with the person.  The right to reuse Directory articles is vested in MyWikiBiz for things like publishing a DVD version, or preloading on PCs as someone else once planned, or for whatever replaces the web in 10 years.  It doesn't vest in Greg Kohs the person.  At least, that's how I read it. Thatcher 22:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

<- This is all fine and dandy, except that GFDL-only content is no longer permissible on Wikipedia. See Licensing update. I'm therefore re-blanking the copy / pasted content per policy. MLauba (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is true, when did Wikipedia delete all content that existed prior to that change over? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to delete a whole article, but then I see that it squeaked in by about 6 weeks. This could have been a lot more fun, had I only prepared a little better. -- Thekohser 13:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to many of my own articles that I know were licensed under GFDL and I don't remember being asked if I would relicense them. So, I wonder how they were allowed to carry forward. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Were they copied from another website to here, after November 1, 2008? If so, you should delete the original text from the current article, leaving behind a comical shell of post-transfer words. -- Thekohser 15:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they were merely just released under GFDL without a dual release. So, if GFDL pages can be turned into dual licensed pages here without consulting anyone, then it can only be assumed that they could be turned into dual licensed from any other GFDL system. Otherwise, there would be a failure. Everything has to follow the same process, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We did release our own contributions under GFDL 1.2 and later, and that and later paved the way for the switch to 1.3 which allowed dual licensing under a certain amount of conditions. A switch for which all contributors present on the site in the March-April timeframe were asked to vote. From there, we did convert our own content to dual licensing. What we can not do, however, is take third party content and relicense it without their consent, just like a wikipedia mirror cannot take any of your contributions from here and decide it's public domain. MLauba (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But is not GFDL a more free license than CC-BY-SA 3.0, and thus anything allowed under GFDL would be acceptable under anything stricter? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that there is some terribly important difference that prevents this from being acceptable. Also, Thekohser can solve this in 5 minutes by simply posting a notice in that specific page with the same double licensing as wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottawa Rima, that's a discussion I'd rather leave to proper lawyers, but in practice, it appears GFDL has some additional burdens that CC-BY-SA doesn't carry. Is it "more free"? I don't know. But CC-BY-SA is more convenient to use, and those additional burdens are what makes both incompatible. Presumably GFDL 2.0 will fix that some day, but until then, we're limited by what we have. MLauba (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph
Just to clarify, the lead paragraph, at the time of this writing, is still not licensed for use. We have three possible solutions: Out of all the three, the third is vastly preferable, I am not able to do rewrite anything worth reading with the sources I can access myself, and the person who will check the copyright status will be in the same situation. I'm sorry if this is a cop-out but I'd rather not sabotage an otherwise fine article here. MLauba (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Wait and hope that the original author relicenses under CC-BY-SA
 * 2) Wait until one member of the copyright cleanup project rewrites an inferior lead
 * 3) Have one of the editors familiar with the sources and able to access them to rewrite a 100% new lead


 * Inferior lead written. :) Best I can do with only one additional source (and a very limited one at that) in addition to the unreliable source duplicated here. I've cited that wiki where I could not independently verify information, as I cannot access the full article in New Blackfriars. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am the original author (Peter Damian/Edward Buckner). I hereby give permission to release under CC-BY-SA. I can give proof of this if requested. I have tidied up Ottava's ham-fisted contributions. Another banned user (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You must give proof of this if you wish the text to be included. See Donating copyrighted materials. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The CC-By-SA category added to the source should be sufficient to show intention, since it was added by the original contributor of that content. I've reviewed the ANI discussion of this, and there seems to be no question that the article's creator here is the same individual that created the article there. Accordingly, I've restored all but the last sentence, as I noticed close similarity to the abstract of the article (which I used in crafting changes) while working on my rewrite. I have not placed an attribution template, as the creator is (according to ANI) attributed in this article's history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)