User talk:Jmerritt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] My Discussion Page ... Scribble Here!
Hello Jmerrit, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and style guide pages are also useful. There is a sandbox which you can use to experiment in. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted. (Message text by Angela)
So much for the welcome message... Thanks for your work on Terms for anatomical location. That page seems to suffer from a lack of information on how the usage of terminology differs in general vs. human anatomy. As I have no clue at all about animals, I would be most grateful if you could help elaborate that question. (Specifically, the dorsal plane in your nice picture corresponds to frontal plane in humans) - but there is certainly more to write about the matter. Perhaps we need another picture? By the way, I would not like to see the page split up - it is much more informative to have the general and the special (human) terminology in one article. Cheers, Kosebamse 13:47, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Your illustration Image:Anatomical-directions-kangaroo.jpg looks quite professional! I've added it to Wikipedia:Brilliant pictures. --Menchi 04:58, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Jon, this and several of your other pictures are really nice, but they all have copyright notices at the bottom. How does this jive with the notion that everything here is released under the GFDL?
Re: licensing...
Hi there, I'm not a lawyer, but I'll explain my understanding of this.
Basically, there is a difference between Copyright of a work and the licensing of that work. As the author of these images, I can retain Copyright over them. As the Copyright holder, I am able to grant the use of these images to people under a license. The license itself may, in turn, restrict any further use of the images by me (an "exclusive" license), but I don't think that this is the case with the GFDL.
A frequently-cited example of this is the possbility that exists to re-use code that is licensed in GNU-GPL programs in a commercial program. This is perfectly legal provided that Copyright is retained (yes, this IS possible!):
[[1]]
I assume that the same applies to the GNU GFDL (that is: is a non-exclusive license). In any case, I will not be re-using these images without checking with a lawyer first, so I can still retain Copyright over the originals.
Jonathan Merritt (2003-10-25) Hi Jmerritt. I edit today a little "Horseshoe" page: I only add a subsection title "Traditional view" and a new subsection "New ideas about horseshoeing". Obviously I don't agree at all with the article content, since I'm a "barefooter" following Jaime Jackson's ideas. I'm deeply engaged in Italian translations of main USA websites on barefoot horse. I suggest you to edit "Horseshoe" article gently introducing some external reference - just to let readers know that very different opinions exist.
Alex (I'm a "one-day" user... I've not a personal page so far.
[edit] Image licensing
My understanding (I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; copyright law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) of the GFDL licensing of your images is that the licence is exactly that; a non-exclusive licence that does not restrict any further uses of your images by yourself as copyright owner. Indeed, GFDL relies on the law of copyright, and your rights as owner.
Once you've GFDL licenced an image, any GFDL licensee can use it in any way allowed by the GFDL, including making copies and derivative works and passing those GFDL rights to other people on the original or GFDL work. However, these rights are limited; they may not distribute the work or its derived works to others on any terms other than those of the GFDL, such as making it part of a non-GFDL-compatible work. This, in particular, means that they may not distribute the GFDL-licenced work as part of another work unless the whole work is covered by the GFDL or another compatible licence.
All other rights, except those granted explicitly under the GFDL, remain with you, as original copyright owner. So you could, I believe, put the pictures in a book or journal published under normal commercial copyright terms, without any problems. The same goes with any other use; the GFDL does not restrict your rights as original copyright owner in any way, except that you cannot revoke the (strictly limited) GFDL rights of the GFDL licencees. -- The Anome 12:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and thanks for the excellent pictures! -- The Anome 12:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
