Talk:Tabled logic programming

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the source is CC-BY licensed and attributed using the proper template. It would be helpful if taggers would briefly check the history and see that this has already been tagged once before and then reverted. Felix QW (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1471068422000102. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The alleged copyright problem turned out to be from the same CC-BY licensed source mentioned above and therefore a well-attributed usage of a freely licensed source. Felix QW (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Felix QW FYI, you should have used {{cc-notice}}, not {{dual}}. I've gone ahead and corrected it in the article.

And yes, you are correct: it is not a copyvio.⸺(Random)staplers 04:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason I used {{dual}} rather than {{cc-notice}} is that it is licensed under CC-BY rather than CC-BY-SA. As a license without a share-alike requirement that only requires attribution, it does seem compatible to GFDL to me. But of course {{cc-notice}} is also correct. Felix QW (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Felix QW, There's nothing making CC-BY 4 incompatible with the GFDL. CC-BY does not preculude you from using more restrictive licenses, or even reselling the work, even copyrighting the derivative work under a different, more restrictive license, like the GFDL.

I think you may be confused about this line:

No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.

But if you read just above:

Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and conditions.

Taken together, this basically says if you say "it's licensed CC-BY, you don't change anything, you cannot turn around and say, "oh, but you can't sell it, even though I presented you with this license that says you can".

"Change." There's multiple layers to copyright. Like the copyright for recording a performance exists. So you're not allowed to record someone's rendition of Beethoven, even though the notes are public domain. You creating this article is your own performance and therefore, it's copyrighted.

Look at this:

If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License.

Which in CC-BY's case, is mostly just providing attribution, since compared to CC-BY-SA, lines like these are stricken from CC-BY:

In addition to the conditions in Section 3(a), if You Share Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions also apply. The Adapter’s License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License.

That means you tell others that the image you changed is now only available on your terms with XYZ license, which you attribute to someguy who released it under CC-BY 4, because you're required by the license to do that.

That notice means nothing in terms of changing the license. It's just stating fact, that you took words from a CC-BY licensed piece of work. It doesn't say that the work is now licensed CC-BY.⸺(Random)staplers 20:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, as for the GFDL, that license requires attribution too, because you have to preserve copyright notices. So there: a more restrictive license that doesn't prevent you from complying with CC-BY.

  the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License.

  ⸺(Random)staplers 03:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)