Wikipedia currently links to tok.life, which is infringing on the copyright of c-toxcore. I think it could be argued that Wikipedia thereby invites its readers to install it and thereby committing copyright infringement themselves, much the same as if the Wikipedia article for a movie contained a link to some third-party site where the reader can download the movie. I'm therefore concerned that Wikipedia might be committing contributory infringement in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- C-Toxcore appears to be published under GPL 3.0, which allows modification and forking provided the fork is released under the same license, which tok.life also appears to be. I see others have commented that the fork is not fully open source, would you have evidence of that? Also, listing all products based on Tox is not eo ipso an invitation to anyone to install it. CrowCaw 17:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The article I read, and the reference that prompted my question, explicitly stated tok.life was in violation of the licence, otherwise I wouldn't have had reason to ask it. As you can see here they aren't distributing the source code of the c-toxcore fork they are using. This would be no problem if c-toxcore was distributed under a BSD-style licence but the GPL requires publication of the full source.
As for your second point, suppose the Game of Thrones article's External Links section didn't just feature a link to HBO but also to a torrent on the Pirate Bay; it's basically the same situation.
- Hopefully others will chime in, but my reading of GPL3 state that a derivative work (fork) must A: Clearly state that it is forked from the other product, B: Release the entirety of the fork under the same license, C: Display legal notices on UIs stating such, and D: Make the source code of the fork available. I don't see anything that says that the source of the program forked from must be included. If I'm wrong, I'm glad to be corrected, as this would seem to be an important distinction.
- Having read the reference for the "violates GPL", that seems to be one of the things that poster was concerned about (in addition to forking from in-secure versions, but that's not a license concern). Though it strikes me as the opinion of one user on a forum, (I don't move in those circles so if that one user is known to be an expert on these legalities, that may change things) so I think until that fact is reliably established, we should not be stating so in the article. If it is established that the product is a copyright infringement, then yes we should not be linking to it for whatever reason, but we will need something more than a post on GitHub. CrowCaw 16:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Copyright issues also on Simple WP - Harmonisation, perhaps?
I just flagged a draft, as a copyright violation. It will be handled in due course by a patrolling admin. I followed a picture on it to commons (also a copyvio, surprise me some more!), and found the picture was also used on Simple English WP in an article that was the exact same copyvio.
It was a bit of a struggle to work out how to flag it there since the various processes are different.
Is there a case for the integration of important elements (such as the removal of copyvios) between the same language of Simple and Ordinary Wikipedias?
Massive copyvio from beginning of Mycobacterium ulcerans?
Hi all, I just started cleaning up Mycobacterium ulcerans today, and a lot of the older text seemed suspect. I punched it into Earwigs and it turns out nearly the entire article as originally posted in SEPTEMBER 2006(!!) is copy/pasted from a 2000 WHO report (Earwig found it on a weird file hosting site here). If we revdel all copyvio-containing diffs, it'll take us back to the page's first edit (which was just a redirect). I've never seen such a longstanding copyvio, so I'm not quite sure what we do... Do we nuke the page and start over? Any guidance would be much appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that looks like a copyvio. If there is non-infringing text which has been added since (as opposed to making changes to the copyvio text) then we can keep the article with the non-infringing text and it isn't necessary to delete the whole thing. We don't necessarily need to revdel all copyvios, revdel is mainly intended for recent and limited use. If you'd like someone else to investigate it then feel free to list it at WP:CP. Hut 8.5 08:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The company BEXIMCO seems to have issued a press release which was added verbatim to the article and removed as a copyvio by another editor, who requested a rev del. Surely a press release is designed to be copied and duplicated, and quoting it is therefore not a blatant copyvio? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Press releases are typically copyrighted and copying them is therefore typically a copyright violation. Admittedly the copyright holder may not care about the content being copied in this case, but that doesn't affect the fact that it's a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 09:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Potential backward copy issue in U.S. Route 66
Large parts of the text of U.S. Route 66 are verbatim with this and this source. I suspect (hopefully) that these sources copied from wikipedia (Backwards copy) and not the other way around, but then why cite them? I'm not very sure how to find out for sure and what steps to take. Asking for feedback here and in the article's talk page. --Alan Islas (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)