Talk:Open Letter to Hobbyists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Should the text be set out slightly, not itallics, but perhaps with a different font or background?
-
-
- I don't know about that, but what concerns me is that it has the whiff of a source text, for which Wikipedia is not a repository of. Respectfully -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 21:55 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-
I replaced it with an external link. :) Martin
Obscure title. I was looking for model railroad information. Wetman 04:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] To those who dislike my revision
I would argue that my revision actually describes the text and motivation of the letter and the arguments it contains. All previous versions just briefly touch on the letter, then proceed into pure editorialism.
My text describes what the letter's *author* believes, not me. Previous versions all reflect what the editors themselves believe.
((I've added a sentence relating the importance of the letter to the open source movement, and a reference: both viewpoints tend to see it as somewhat significant.))
[edit] Speaking of copyright infringement...
What gives Wikipedia the right to publish the letter in its entirety? As far as I know, Gates still holds the copyright on this document.
Not that I don't like having the text here. But Wikipedia has always taken a high road when it comes to copyright. Phiwum 10:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think the fact that it's an "Open letter to Hobbyists" and even adressed as such rather defeats any idea that the author would, or even could, withhold permission to reproduce! By its very nature the author placed this document in the public domain when he wrote it. Tim
- Absolutely not. Calling something an open letter does not mean putting it in the public domain. At least, I've never seen this claim anywhere.
- I repeat myself: this entry seems to contain a flagrant copyright violation—one with very little potential for damages, admittedly. But I don't think that an open letter is automatically public domain. If you have any clear citations that would persuade me otherwise, please share them. Phiwum 10:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think the solution is clear. Someone should email Mr. Gates and ask for his written permission to publish the full text of the letter. Dave Slinn 23:19 June 12, 2006 UTC
- An open letter is something that's addressed to an individual, but also distributed to media and other outlets for the express purpose of reproduction and mass-consumption. Heck, even the wikipedia entry on them says as much, as do others.
- It was *intended* for reproduction. That's the point of an *open letter*. Removing the text was silly if done on copyright grounds. Tim
- I think the solution is clear. Someone should email Mr. Gates and ask for his written permission to publish the full text of the letter. Dave Slinn 23:19 June 12, 2006 UTC
- I think the fact that it's an "Open letter to Hobbyists" and even adressed as such rather defeats any idea that the author would, or even could, withhold permission to reproduce! By its very nature the author placed this document in the public domain when he wrote it. Tim
I have removed the text. Conscious 10:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this text falls under 'Fair use in|Open Letter to Hobbyists' or 'Promotional' or 'Publicity Photos'. While it is certainly still under Gates' copyright, by making it an open letter, he implicitly gave permission to redistribute and cite. Dgies 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Either he gave explicit or implicit permission to do so. The fact that he called it an "open letter" doesn't seem to grant explicit permission to redistribute it. I don't know of any case that establishes implicit permission to redistribute open letters, but I'm not a lawyer and I'm not claiming rights that aren't obvious. If you can defend this claim, please do. Phiwum 00:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, 'IANAL', but the title "Open Letter" suggests to me that the author gives permission for anyone to read or share it in unmodified form. It seems to me that in the absence of obvious copyright infringement, the implication of permission, and the unlikelyness that inclusion would cause any monetary damage to the copyright holder, we should give inclusion the benefit of the doubt. Dgies 06:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia errs on the side of caution on these matters. The fact that it's called an open letter does not satisfy the conditions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, namely
- Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the GFDL, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source.
- Including the letter in its entirety is a copyright violation. Phiwum 13:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia errs on the side of caution on these matters. The fact that it's called an open letter does not satisfy the conditions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, namely
- Well, 'IANAL', but the title "Open Letter" suggests to me that the author gives permission for anyone to read or share it in unmodified form. It seems to me that in the absence of obvious copyright infringement, the implication of permission, and the unlikelyness that inclusion would cause any monetary damage to the copyright holder, we should give inclusion the benefit of the doubt. Dgies 06:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Either he gave explicit or implicit permission to do so. The fact that he called it an "open letter" doesn't seem to grant explicit permission to redistribute it. I don't know of any case that establishes implicit permission to redistribute open letters, but I'm not a lawyer and I'm not claiming rights that aren't obvious. If you can defend this claim, please do. Phiwum 00:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
