Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
This is dealt with in the section “Making use of materian from the nLab”.
In short, free use of everything, if accompanied with proper attribution.
In particular, mirroring the nLab is clearly permitted. If you are looking into this concretely, which would be appreciated, I’ll bring you in contact with our technical team members for further details.
Urs - a3nm seems to make a lot of corrections or clarifications to fairly random Wikipedia articles.
He made the last 2 changes to the nLab article there involving the Journal and copyright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLab&action=history
Thanks, I see.
@Urs Please don’t refer to it as the scare-quote-steering-committee. You were also member at the time, and for whatever reason, unimportant now (and I can’t remember and I don’t have time to go read the thread), no consensus was reached. The steering committee was a necessary body in the early days on the nLab due to various troubles. If now you have found it unfit for purpose and moved on, then that’s no reason to publicly disparage its actions before what led you to decide to leave it.
Re #7: Thanks for getting back to me.
So in your opinion, best practice would be that the nLab states a copyright statement at the bottom of each page?
And maybe, from what you say, it should also be stated prominently around the edit pane where users make their edits?
Is there available some website or document of some authority, which would discuss best practice for copyright issues of this kind?
Some source to support the point that you are implying?
(Not that I am doubting it, but just so that I have more in hand than a quote by an anonymous handle.)
A quick search of the nForum leads to these two discussions from 2011, which may be relevant:
https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/2733/copyright/
https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/3003/restriction-to-usage/
For what it's worth, everything that I ever write (here or elsewhere) is free for any use.
If somebody wants to make an archive, they don't really have to pay attention to copyright until the time comes to make that archive public. In the USA, the Betamax VCR case established that it's Fair Use to make a personal copy to read once later; and realistically, there's no way to enforce it even if you go beyond that (which VCR owners regularly did, taping permanent home-video libraries). Even posting the archive publicly may be legal as long as it's just an archive and you take the appropriate steps to take infringing material down when you're notified (such as through a DMCA take-down notice in the USA). In fact, all of this stuff should already be on the Wayback Machine and similar web archives, and it would take affirmative action by an infringed editor to get it removed.
It would still be better to have everything explicitly licensed, so that you can make a fork and open it for active editing, copy text wholesale to Wikipedia or the like, or even just publish your archive without having to worry about take-down notices. Unfortunately, it's hard to do this after the horse is out of the barn, so to speak. We could start posting something, like on Wikipedia, saying that every contributor licenses their contributions under CC-BY or whatever, but that wouldn't affect past contributions, so you still wouldn't be able to make an archive without checking the dates of every edit. Since contributors sometimes copy material from one article to another, you'd even have to trust that they only copied material from after the notice went up, which isn't realistic. So it seems too late now.
1 to 13 of 13