Talk:Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
The deleted copyrighted material submission dated 23:00, 30 August 2006, is perfectly fine, on the firms behalf I will allow it. I will send further correspondance to permissions at wikimedia dot org. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremy.howell (talk • contribs) .
- Sorry but we can't just take you at your word on this. It's unlikely that a law firm would be interested in relicensing their website content to be compatible with wikipedia's licensing scheme, so you'll have to do more to show otherwise. -PullUpYourSocks 18:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
So.. Could you explain why taking an excerpt from our website isn't acceptable? Would someone like an email proving that I handle technical issues within the organization?--Jeremy.howell 23:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Whether you are really associated with Davies it not the issue, rather the issue is whether the copyright holder of the website material has properly granted a GFDL compatible license for the work. This license means that Davies is not just giving permission to use the material on wikipedia, but it is also granting permission for anyone to copy, modify, and restribute any part of the material as long as they conform to the terms of the GFDL. The implications of the license are pretty huge. Particularly, it means that Davies will have a hard time ever protecting the use of the material on the website because everyone would be able to use the work as they choose. Clearly, it is not in their interest to license their material and so I'm doubtful they ever would. In any event, something more than "I will allow it on my company's behalf" is required to grant the license. That is hardly proof verifying that you have legally bound Davis to the terms of the license. I'd suggest looking at the process for granting permission here. If you can confirm with the wikipedia PR department that the license has been properly granted then the material can stay. Otherwise, you really don't give us much to go on. --PullUpYourSocks 02:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
PullUpYourSocks, I understand your comments and will create original text for the wikipedia Davies page. My concern was with the slavies attribute which I thought was completely uncalled for and not necessary.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickrubbo (talk • contribs) .
