Talk:AS-90

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] What does "ERA" mean in this context?

What does "ERA" mean in this context? The current list on the disambiguation page do not seem to apply. RedWolf 02:11, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

acronymfinder.com seems to have the best guess of "Extended Range Ammunition" or "Extended Range Artillery". ugen64 02:13, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Often also known as 'Base Bleed' Ammunition. Rob cowie 19:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The correct name for the program was 'ERA/ERO', meaning Extended Range Ammunition/Extended Rage Ordnance Nfe 10:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In service with the Yanks?

Isn't this weapon in service with the Yanks as propelled weapons were built in 2005 at BAE Telford for the US Army. King Konger

It's not in US service Chwyatt 13:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

It's missing. AS90 has to have a FV number, and land-service numbers for the complete equipment (eg something around L125) and ordnance (eg something around L27).

There's also the matter of the auxiliary engine. Nfe 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why delete picture?

It is of an AS-90 and comes from the UK MoD Defence Image Library and hence is in the public domain. What's wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfe (talk • contribs)

The problem is that the image is copyrighted and using it here infringes that copyright. Because the copyright is owned by a department of the British government does not mean that it is public domain, in fact as I remember it means that it is copyrighted for 50 more years. It is the US government that releases all their images into the public domain - this does not apply to most other countries.--Konstable 08:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest a bit more study on intellectual property law, notably that of UK and what copyright actually means. The purpose of copyright is to give the owner control over their property, these property rights can be transferred in their entirety or in part. MoD's terms and conditions for use of their images are at http://www.defenceimagedatabase.mod.uk/fotoweb/terms.fwx

This explicitly grants the right of non-commercial use. This means that if you use an image in something you produce for sale then you must pay a licence fee. However, if you are not using it to turn a buck then you can use it free of charge. Wikipedia is not a commercial operation (unless someone's being very naughty and telling porkies).

Every work has copyright attached to it. Copyright means the copyright owner has can grant whatever rights they choose to other parties. For example my words here are copyright to me but I have granted free publication rights to Wikipedia. However, if Wikipedia decided to become a commercial operation then I would revoke my waivure and take approprate legal action if Wikipedia did not remove my work (or paid me lots). MoD waives their copyright so long as someone else doesn't try and make a buck from it, then they take the entirely reasonable view that the UK taxpayer should get a fraction of this buck. A commercial purpose does of course include such things as BAE, the producer of AS-90, using MoD's image in their promotional material (although I suspect BAE pay a lump sum and can use whatever they want).

If Wikipedia wanted to be doubly sure then they could approach MoD for confirmation that publication on Wikipedia does not constitute a commercial purpose. If MoD states that they consider Wikepdia to be commercial then the options are to either remove all MoD copyright images or argue the toss in court. Has Wikipedia approached MoD for confirmation and have they said Wikipedia is commercial?

The reality is that MoD publishes their images so that they get publicity, that's what they want. They just object to people making money out of their work and not giving them a share.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfe (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry I did not write this policy, but Wikipedia is strict on images - they must be able to be re-used commercially as well (see WP:NONFREE). While Wikipedia itself does not make money off them (or at least claims not to, they still get millions in donations) the goal of this project is to also allow our content to be re-usable even in commercial settings (such as the WP:V1.0 project or maybe producing printed copies). And as the copyright tag currently used on the image says, someone did in fact already ask the branch of UK government that handles copyrights for permissions to use their content and they refused. This is not my individual decision to remove the image, it is the wishes of the copyright owner not to have these images here due to Wikipedia's licensing policies.--Konstable 05:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup that's commercial use and the UK taxpayer is not to be ripped off by all and sundry. It also explains some of the woeful contributions in Wikipedia. The real experts are often unwilling to have their intellectual property exploited by others without benefit to them. Nfe 02:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Royal Regiment of Artillery

I have changed certain wording to better reflect the actuall relationship between the Royal Horse Artillery and the Royal Artillery - both are parts of the Royal Regiment of Artillery. I know this may seem like mere semantics and hair-splitting and I couldn't care less. Darth Doctrinus 19:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)