Talk:Robert E. Sheriff

Untitled
The SEG Wiki shares the same Creative Commons license as Wikipedia. Bmtmotion (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well,, I don't know what to think. The page does indeed carry a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; then it says "additional terms may apply. See SEG Wiki Terms of Use for details". And when you do that you find this:
 * So that's one conundrum. The principal problem I see with copying stuff from some other wiki is that we have no idea if that content is original, or if it is itself a copyright violation from its sources. That seems to be the case here, I'm afraid - see this comparison, for example. I'm afraid I can't see any alternative to treating your work as a copyright violation, though I recognise that the content was added here entirely in good faith. I'm very sorry about that. (I'll take it that you've read this, and will not put a separate notification on your talk page). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The SEG website is very confusing. :/ Fortunately, though, the first "Terms of Use" you come to, Justlettersandnumbers, are not the "SET Wiki Terms of Use", but the SEG.org Terms of Use. The SEG Wiki Terms of Use, here, is a little more friendly to us, as it says "the content of the SEG Wiki, except as may be noted otherwise within it, is available to the public without access controls and is available for reuse by anyone under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA)." Unless exception is noted, we may presume content in the wiki itself (if not the website) is compatibly licensed.
 * The SEG website is very confusing. :/ Fortunately, though, the first "Terms of Use" you come to, Justlettersandnumbers, are not the "SET Wiki Terms of Use", but the SEG.org Terms of Use. The SEG Wiki Terms of Use, here, is a little more friendly to us, as it says "the content of the SEG Wiki, except as may be noted otherwise within it, is available to the public without access controls and is available for reuse by anyone under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA)." Unless exception is noted, we may presume content in the wiki itself (if not the website) is compatibly licensed.


 * That would permit use, but Bmtmotion, only if clear attribution is supplied. CC-By-SA has strict attribution requirements; we cannot import content from CC-By-SA sites without clearly acknowledging authorship. I'm explaining more about that at your talk page. :)


 * However, as Justlettersandnumbers notes, it doesn't help where content is copied or closely parpahrased from other sources on that other website. I've removed content that I believe followed too closely on the obituary and carefully spot-checked the rest. I don't see any other signs of close paraphrasing or copying. If there are any, we'll need to remove or replace them as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)