Template talk:Sejm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Freeness
"Zezwala się na używanie, kopiowanie oraz wykorzystanie materiałów znajdujących się w Serwisie Informacyjnym Sejmu w sieci Internet, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia." - isn't it CC-BY? [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.29.14.21 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- CC, certainly not. {{attribution}}, possibly, but a more specific translation is needed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Translation: Using, copying and exploitation of materials from the Sejm of Republic of Poland website is allowed provided that the source is given. This is free license. A.J. 09:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing about modification there. Frequently things that allow free copying and sale prohibit modification, especially government-type things (which often wish the integrity of statements they make to be preserved or whatever). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with English language nunaces, but in Polish "używanie" and "wykorzystanie" (which I translated to "using" and "exploitation") are very broad terms and both include modification as well. What you say is: they allowed using, exploitation, whatever, but they didn't say how we can use it, so the safest is assume we can't use it at all (or only as fair use), because maybe what we are doing is prohibited. Does it make sense? I don't think so. Polish native-speakers understed this as absoluteluy free {{Attribution}}-like license. If you think otherwise, please insdead of reverting add a warning note to both in this template and commons:Template:SejmCopyright and start a deletion debate on commons, because if your'e right all Sejm images should be deleted from Commons. A.J. 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is also not explicitly prohibited. By your logic, I could argue that Wikipedia is violating GFDL, because GDFL does not explicitly allow its content to be used in encyclopedias...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, only explicit legal rights usually must be waived explicitly. You have an explicit exclusive right to prepare derivative works, to redistribute, etc.; if you waive those, then anyone can prepare derivative works or redistribute. The right to make an encyclopedia out of your work is only a corollary of those rights, and so is waived along with them.
Given that the local consensus seems to be against me, though, and given that I can't claim any knowledge of Polish, I'll concede this point. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, only explicit legal rights usually must be waived explicitly. You have an explicit exclusive right to prepare derivative works, to redistribute, etc.; if you waive those, then anyone can prepare derivative works or redistribute. The right to make an encyclopedia out of your work is only a corollary of those rights, and so is waived along with them.
- Nothing about modification there. Frequently things that allow free copying and sale prohibit modification, especially government-type things (which often wish the integrity of statements they make to be preserved or whatever). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
