Talk:MoReq2/Archive 1

Archive 1

About the CoreSearchBot's opbjection

The bot reported an apparent copyright infringement with the page http://www.cornwell.co.uk/edrm/moreq.asp (referred to below as "the Cornwell page"). This is presumably because of the repetition of text describing the intended purpose of MoReq2 (MoReq on the cornwell page). The pages both refer to MoReq, but otherwise are different. Incidentally, Cornwell no longer exists as a trading entity, having been taken over and absorbed.+

I authored both the current Wikipedia page and the Cornwell page.

In both pages the text in question is a copy or very near copy of section 1.5 of MoReq1 or MoReq2 (they are identical or near-identical, I forget). The text of MoReq1 and MoReq2 can be quoted freely - its IPR notice states "Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged." To avoid any possible confusion I have made it clear that the text in question is an explicit quote from MoReq2.

Marc Fresko —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMGarth (talk • contribs) 08:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Several things:

1. The fact that an entity no longer exists doesn't mean its intellectual property rights have vanished, they would in reality be transferred to its successors-in-interest.
2. The IPR notice is exactly the issue, as those terms are incompatible with Wikipedia. Commercial use cannot be excluded, which is the case here. In accordance with the precautionary principle governing our copyright policies, the section has therefore been replaced by a standard boilerplate message, and should be replaced by a descriptive prose that isn't a copy or paraphrase of the source. Ideally by someone who is proficient in the topic area, for that matter. MLauba (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear MLauba

Thanks.

The text at issue consitutes 145 words out of a work that runs to 73,926 words. That amounts to less than 0.2% of the work. Can that really constitute copyright violation? If yes, what is the lower limit (percentage or word count) that Wikipedia deems acceptable?

Sorry about confusing the issue by raising the fact that Cornwell no longer exists which is, as you point out quite correctly, an irrelevant distraction.

MMGarth (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In jurisprudence, there appears to be no real notion of word limits, courts decide whether there is infringement on a case-by-case basis. But that isn't what guides us here, our copyright policy errs on the side of caution and is probably quite a bit stricter than what law demands.

In practice, we tend to accept 1-2 sentences provided they are properly identified as a quote (this is done so that a future editor doesn't start to modify the text to the point it has no relation to the source anymore while still being attributed, for instance). But beyond that, we apply a slightly different standard:

• is a verbatim quote absolutely necessary?
• is replacing the verbatim quote by a synthetic description made in original language impossible without totally gutting the meaning?

Upon reviewing, it is my belief that it should be possible to present the purpose of this specification without resorting to the verbatim quote, and moreover, in a language that is more accessible to the lay person (which is immensely preferrable in terms of a Wikipedia article).

That solution would also be vastly superior in the sense that avoiding using material that specificaly excludes commercial use would further respect the spirit and the letter of the source.

I will have a go at the text in 1-2 days if you don't in any case, but if you can describe the purpose in a more accessible and succint manner, just go ahead, I'll make a quick review whenever convenient. Best, MLauba (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again MLauba.

I have created a page Talk:MoReq2/Temp on which I have posted a "synthetic description" as you suggest.

Assuming you agree it is free of copyvio, please move it to the article to restore its integrity and remove the violation notice.

As the author of the original MoReq2 text and its predecessor MoReq, I am confident I have captured the meaning adequately without exposing The Wikimedia Foundation to the threat of a multi-billion euro lawsuit from the European Communities (or indeed, any action whatsoever) for infringement of its licence. I feel proud to have had this opportunity to display "vast superiority" hereby, despite being faced with a lamentably vague policy implemented with such labyrinthinje guidance. It is a privilege to have taken part in the process (I'll probably dine out on the story of this interaction for years).

MMGarth (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've taken the liberty to tweak your words a bit more for simplicity's sake.

Beyond that, while I'm tempted to point out that the real worry isn't a multi-billion Euro lawsuit from the EC in this specific case, but simply to adhere to a precautionary principle that would, should push come to shove in a more credible case, allow the Wikimedia Foundation's defendants to demonstrate that Wikipedia acts with diligence and in good faith on cases that it is made aware of, I will instead content myself with the reassurance that providing a good dining story for the enjoyment of your guests is, after all, also a net benefit of this entire exchange. I wish you a pleasant day, and should you have any further queries, do not hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. MLauba (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)