Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[とある白い猫]

The media we have are primarily if not completely briefings by witnesses
and people compiling the report. If we have exceptions to that we can deal
with it but I don't think this is the most pressing problem for the report
in question. Our goal here isn't to fix the internet or copyright but
rather provide the content of the report and its supplementary evidence on
Wikimedia so that it is preserved historically and there is no risk of
content vanishing due to someone failing to renew hosting or something.

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

On 14 July 2016 at 14:54, Gordon Joly  wrote:

> On 13/07/16 09:01, とある白い猫 wrote:
> > *
> >
> >
> > These can be the rationale or part of the rationale we can use to
> > persuade BBC etc. to willingly release such rights for a select number
> > of files.
>
>
> But they do not own the rights to everything. Two cases come to mind:
>
> 1) The Archer's Fan Club
>
> 2) Desert Island Discs.
>
> Many programmes will use snippets of music that are licenced in various
> ways (e.g. allowed media and time duration). A radio drama might only be
> allowed "on air" for a 28 days, or a year, since the rights for the
> music used are time limited.
>
> Gordo
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Gordon Joly]

On 13/07/16 09:01, とある白い猫 wrote:
> *
> 
> 
> These can be the rationale or part of the rationale we can use to
> persuade BBC etc. to willingly release such rights for a select number
> of files.


But they do not own the rights to everything. Two cases come to mind:

1) The Archer's Fan Club

2) Desert Island Discs.

Many programmes will use snippets of music that are licenced in various
ways (e.g. allowed media and time duration). A radio drama might only be
allowed "on air" for a 28 days, or a year, since the rights for the
music used are time limited.

Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Gordon Joly]

On 13/07/16 00:27, Joseph Fox wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but copyright protection laws in the UK usually
> trump claims of public interest. We'd probably need some landmark court
> case to prove otherwise.

And

Just being hearing about the change to copyright law (Clause 52) that
will increase copyright from 25 to 70 years after the death of the
designer. This takes effect on July 28th. It is a European thing

Might also affect representations of the design (e.g. photographs).

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Chairs_by_designer

Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[とある白い猫]

The idea here is to seek copyright holders to voluntarily release content
with a free license, just like how we regularly try this through OTRS etc.
No one here suggests ignoring copyright, at least not me. I however believe
our regular method of seeking this may be inadequate this time as we will
be dealing with possibly for profit commercial entities that may need a bit
more effort to convince.


   - In the interest of public interest given the very nature of the
   report, there is in my view a strong argument that copyright restrictions
   restrict/limit access to the supplementary files to the report.
   - We seek free licenses to these files to safeguard their existence on
   the internet since it is not clear for how long the "Iraq Inquiry" website
   will stay where it is, will it be there in five years? Five decades? The
   public interest could only be secured if we are able to make copies of the
   supplementary documents without copyright restrictions.
   - Our work with the files (wikification) will make the documents more
   searchable and digestible, easing public access to the report and its
   supplementary media.


These can be the rationale or part of the rationale we can use to persuade
BBC etc. to willingly release such rights for a select number of files. We
can debate the rationale further. I feel success of this is more likely if
the problem is highlighted (possibly by using our devised criteria) by an
MP or several MPs prior to our attempts which could create some informal
high level discussion that would ease this process. I do not expect a bill
to be introduced or something like that.

We ought to also identify who owns the copyright of all the media on the
site in question, perhaps a list of files page where we can identify the
filename and copyright in order to manage this. The archive is massive and
that is why this is needed.

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

On 13 July 2016 at 01:27, Joseph Fox  wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but copyright protection laws in the UK usually
> trump claims of public interest. We'd probably need some landmark court
> case to prove otherwise.
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 23:51 とある白い猫  wrote:
>
>> I do not understand what you are asking me. Do you want me to find you an
>> academic paper regarding the BBC for an exception we should seek? Why would
>> I do this?
>>
>> The question here is simple: Do we seek to acquire these files in the
>> interest of the general public or do we not bother to attempt this?
>>
>>   -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
>>
>> On 12 July 2016 at 16:03, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫  wrote:
>>>
>>> > I am not really interested in discussing general policy of the BBC etc.
>>> > regarding copyright at this point.
>>>
>>> Neither am I; I asked whether you could substantiate your claim that:
>>>
>>>   BBC and commercial providers can be compelled [to relinquish their
>>>   rights] on the basis of public interest
>>>
>>> If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andy Mabbett
>>> @pigsonthewing
>>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Joseph Fox]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but copyright protection laws in the UK usually
trump claims of public interest. We'd probably need some landmark court
case to prove otherwise.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 23:51 とある白い猫  wrote:

> I do not understand what you are asking me. Do you want me to find you an
> academic paper regarding the BBC for an exception we should seek? Why would
> I do this?
>
> The question here is simple: Do we seek to acquire these files in the
> interest of the general public or do we not bother to attempt this?
>
>   -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
>
> On 12 July 2016 at 16:03, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
>> On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫  wrote:
>>
>> > I am not really interested in discussing general policy of the BBC etc.
>> > regarding copyright at this point.
>>
>> Neither am I; I asked whether you could substantiate your claim that:
>>
>>   BBC and commercial providers can be compelled [to relinquish their
>>   rights] on the basis of public interest
>>
>> If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there.
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[とある白い猫]

I do not understand what you are asking me. Do you want me to find you an
academic paper regarding the BBC for an exception we should seek? Why would
I do this?

The question here is simple: Do we seek to acquire these files in the
interest of the general public or do we not bother to attempt this?

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

On 12 July 2016 at 16:03, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫  wrote:
>
> > I am not really interested in discussing general policy of the BBC etc.
> > regarding copyright at this point.
>
> Neither am I; I asked whether you could substantiate your claim that:
>
>   BBC and commercial providers can be compelled [to relinquish their
>   rights] on the basis of public interest
>
> If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Charles Matthews]

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:The_Report_of_the_Iraq_Inquiry_-_Executive_Summary.pdf
is work in progress.

Charles___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Andy Mabbett]

On 12 July 2016 at 16:17, Charles Matthews
 wrote:

>>Neither am I; I asked whether [...]

> WP:DTS

You have quoted me selectively; omitting: "If you cannot, I'm happy to
leave things there."

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Charles Matthews]

> 
> On 12 July 2016 at 15:03 Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
> Neither am I; I asked whether [...]
> 

WP:DTS.  Charles___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Andy Mabbett]

On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫  wrote:

> I am not really interested in discussing general policy of the BBC etc.
> regarding copyright at this point.

Neither am I; I asked whether you could substantiate your claim that:

  BBC and commercial providers can be compelled [to relinquish their
  rights] on the basis of public interest

If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[とある白い猫]

I am not really interested in discussing general policy of the BBC etc.
regarding copyright at this point. I would kindly ask we discontinue
pursuing that line of questions.

Instead, I would like to point out the specific files that relate to the
Iraq Inquiry.[1] These are briefings that should be freely licensed in the
interest of the general public. I do not believe we should be discouraged
on how complex the process is. Regardless of how complex this may be, we
should attempt to the best of our abilities and available resources.

This is why I suggested seeking MPs to highlight the interests of the
general public and progress from there. I am under the impression that BBC
etc facilitated the recordings and own the intellectual property.

[1]:
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/Search/?query==False=0=0=0=0=0===2


  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

On 10 July 2016 at 19:28, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On 10 July 2016 at 09:26, とある白い猫  wrote:
>
> > BBC and commercial providers can be compelled on the basis of public
> > interest
>
> Can you provide a citation or case study to substantiate that claim?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Andy Mabbett]

On 10 July 2016 at 09:26, とある白い猫  wrote:

> BBC and commercial providers can be compelled on the basis of public
> interest

Can you provide a citation or case study to substantiate that claim?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Gordon Joly]

On 10/07/16 09:26, とある白い猫 wrote:
> 
> BBC and commercial providers can be compelled on the basis of public
> interest since the recordings are briefings of the people compiling the
> reports.

Not my experience. The BBC has very complex rights issues.

Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[とある白い猫]

The thing is I would rather not go through each attachment one by one if
possible since this creates an unneeded complexity. An overarching
copyright statement would achieve to circumvent this. I cannot find a
single reason why we should not seek this.

Also  "unless otherwise stated" is a very problematic statement as the
website itself provides that statement to all documents and attachments
without a copyright notice. Hence why contacting MPs can be an easy way out
for everyone.

BBC and commercial providers can be compelled on the basis of public
interest since the recordings are briefings of the people compiling the
reports. These document a record of the progress on the report over time.
It also provides witness accounts etc. They compliment the report well.

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

On 8 July 2016 at 17:06, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On 8 July 2016 at 15:42, とある白い猫  wrote:
>
> > Unless explicitly stated we need to exclude anything that isn't freely
> > licensed. This is per existing policy that should be familiar to
> everyone.
>
> I haven't seen anyone say otherwise so I'm  not sure what point you're
> making here.
>
> > I was not aware the report itself had an independent license. Why is
> there a
> > discrepancy between the report's copyright notice and that of the
> website?
>
> Because one applies to the report, the other to the website.
>
> > Are classified attachments also under the same license?
>
> The statement in the report (I'm looking at the executive summary) is:
>
>This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government
>Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.
>
> so you're going to need to look at the individual attachments to
> determine whether an exclusion is made.
>
> > How about interviews recorded by the BBC
> > etc (ie other content such as videos)?
>
> AIUI, these are not part of the report.
>
> > Ideally, everything on the site should be freely licensed so that in can
> > be copied to wikisource and commons (videos and media including
> > pdfs).
>
> On what basis would you compel the BBC and commercial providers to
> relinquish their rights?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Andy Mabbett]

On 8 July 2016 at 15:42, とある白い猫  wrote:

> Unless explicitly stated we need to exclude anything that isn't freely
> licensed. This is per existing policy that should be familiar to everyone.

I haven't seen anyone say otherwise so I'm  not sure what point you're
making here.

> I was not aware the report itself had an independent license. Why is there a
> discrepancy between the report's copyright notice and that of the website?

Because one applies to the report, the other to the website.

> Are classified attachments also under the same license?

The statement in the report (I'm looking at the executive summary) is:

   This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government
   Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.

so you're going to need to look at the individual attachments to
determine whether an exclusion is made.

> How about interviews recorded by the BBC
> etc (ie other content such as videos)?

AIUI, these are not part of the report.

> Ideally, everything on the site should be freely licensed so that in can
> be copied to wikisource and commons (videos and media including
> pdfs).

On what basis would you compel the BBC and commercial providers to
relinquish their rights?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[とある白い猫]

Copyright is a restriction on public access on this document that is meant
to be released without restrictions. This is a powerful argument we
shouldn't exclude. Unless explicitly stated we need to exclude anything
that isn't freely licensed. This is per existing policy that should be
familiar to everyone.

I was not aware the report itself had an independent license. Why is there
a discrepancy between the report's copyright notice and that of the
website? You cannot really blame me as the terms and conditions of the
websites makes no mention of it.The website should echo the copyright of
the report, not override it. This is an issue that can be fixed.

Are classified attachments also under the same license? They should be but
is this explicitly stated anywhere? How about interviews recorded by the
BBC etc (ie other content such as videos)? Ideally, everything on the site
should be freely licensed so that in can be copied to wikisource and
commons (videos and media including pdfs).

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

On 8 July 2016 at 16:02, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On 8 July 2016 at 01:51, とある白い猫  wrote:
>
> > It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general
> public's
> > access to the report.
>
> How so?
>
> > I do feel that any single email from us would be promptly ignored as
> there
> > probably is a large volume of emails. It may be prudent to either start a
> > petition (for the Parliament) or ask a few MPs to raise the copyright
> issue
> > in the Parliament.
>
> Petitioning for what? The report is already under the CC-by compatible
> Open Government Licence 3.0
>
> > First of, the websites terms and conditions do not explicitly release the
> > works under a free license.[1]
>
> No, the report's licence is on the pages of the report itself.
>
> > Moreover it mentions BSkyB, BBC and ITN as copyright holders of some of
> the
> > documents. Any migration to Wikisource must filter out such content.
>
> Are your referring to inclusions in the report, or to other content on
> the inquiry website?
>
> > Lastly there are a number of now declassified documents that provide
> vital
> > evidence to reinforce the reports findings, these too need to be freely
> > licensed.
>
> AIUI, they are (albeit with understandable redactions).
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Richard Symonds]

I believe the website and the report are different - the report itself, on
page three, states the following:

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence
v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit
nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives,
Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: p...@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we
have identified any third party copyright information you will need to
obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 8 July 2016 at 15:02, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On 8 July 2016 at 01:51, とある白い猫  wrote:
>
> > It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general
> public's
> > access to the report.
>
> How so?
>
> > I do feel that any single email from us would be promptly ignored as
> there
> > probably is a large volume of emails. It may be prudent to either start a
> > petition (for the Parliament) or ask a few MPs to raise the copyright
> issue
> > in the Parliament.
>
> Petitioning for what? The report is already under the CC-by compatible
> Open Government Licence 3.0
>
> > First of, the websites terms and conditions do not explicitly release the
> > works under a free license.[1]
>
> No, the report's licence is on the pages of the report itself.
>
> > Moreover it mentions BSkyB, BBC and ITN as copyright holders of some of
> the
> > documents. Any migration to Wikisource must filter out such content.
>
> Are your referring to inclusions in the report, or to other content on
> the inquiry website?
>
> > Lastly there are a number of now declassified documents that provide
> vital
> > evidence to reinforce the reports findings, these too need to be freely
> > licensed.
>
> AIUI, they are (albeit with understandable redactions).
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Andy Mabbett]

On 8 July 2016 at 01:51, とある白い猫  wrote:

> It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general public's
> access to the report.

How so?

> I do feel that any single email from us would be promptly ignored as there
> probably is a large volume of emails. It may be prudent to either start a
> petition (for the Parliament) or ask a few MPs to raise the copyright issue
> in the Parliament.

Petitioning for what? The report is already under the CC-by compatible
Open Government Licence 3.0

> First of, the websites terms and conditions do not explicitly release the
> works under a free license.[1]

No, the report's licence is on the pages of the report itself.

> Moreover it mentions BSkyB, BBC and ITN as copyright holders of some of the
> documents. Any migration to Wikisource must filter out such content.

Are your referring to inclusions in the report, or to other content on
the inquiry website?

> Lastly there are a number of now declassified documents that provide vital
> evidence to reinforce the reports findings, these too need to be freely
> licensed.

AIUI, they are (albeit with understandable redactions).

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Lucy Crompton-Reid]

I would be happy to take this forward. Best, Lucy

On 8 July 2016 at 11:17, とある白い猫  wrote:

> Indeed, that would be a good start as a pilot project. Does anyone from
> WMUK have contacts with the Parliament?
>
>   -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
>
> On 8 July 2016 at 07:18, Charles Matthews  > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08 July 2016 at 01:51 とある白い猫  wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general
>> public's access to the report. I feel it is in the public's best interest
>> to have this monolith of documentation on a more user friendly venue such
>> as Wikisource where it can be more manageable and digestible.
>>
>> While I'm in sympathy with the aim (I even have the Scott Report on my
>> shelves, which is not "digested") my immediate thought is that the
>> Executive Summary should be used as a pilot project, if anything is
>> actually to happen.
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>



-- 

Lucy Crompton-Reid

Chief Executive

Wikimedia UK

+44 (0) 207 065 0991



Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.

Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The
Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent
non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility
for its contents.*
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[とある白い猫]

Indeed, that would be a good start as a pilot project. Does anyone from
WMUK have contacts with the Parliament?

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

On 8 July 2016 at 07:18, Charles Matthews 
wrote:

>
> On 08 July 2016 at 01:51 とある白い猫  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general
> public's access to the report. I feel it is in the public's best interest
> to have this monolith of documentation on a more user friendly venue such
> as Wikisource where it can be more manageable and digestible.
>
> While I'm in sympathy with the aim (I even have the Scott Report on my
> shelves, which is not "digested") my immediate thought is that the
> Executive Summary should be used as a pilot project, if anything is
> actually to happen.
>
> Charles
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Charles Matthews]

> On 08 July 2016 at 01:51 とある白い猫  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general
> public's access to the report. I feel it is in the public's best interest to
> have this monolith of documentation on a more user friendly venue such as
> Wikisource where it can be more manageable and digestible.
> 

While I'm in sympathy with the aim (I even have the Scott Report on my shelves,
which is not "digested") my immediate thought is that the Executive Summary
should be used as a pilot project, if anything is actually to happen.

Charles___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[とある白い猫]

Furthermore there seems to be videos presented as evidence. These seem to
have "© 2009-2010 BSkyB, the BBC and ITN. All Rights Reserved" which needs
to be released with a free licensed as well, particularly sessions by The
Iraq Inquiry which has witness accounts.

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

On 8 July 2016 at 02:51, とある白い猫  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general
> public's access to the report. I feel it is in the public's best interest
> to have this monolith of documentation on a more user friendly venue such
> as Wikisource where it can be more manageable and digestible.
>
> I do feel that any single email from us would be promptly ignored as there
> probably is a large volume of emails. It may be prudent to either start a
> petition (for the Parliament) or ask a few MPs to raise the copyright issue
> in the Parliament.
>
> I may be late to the game but I do have a few copyright concerns which may
> have been already addressed. I would most sincerely apologize if there is
> duplication.
>
> I have identified a number of copyright issues with the report.
>
> First of, the websites terms and conditions do not explicitly release the
> works under a free license.[1] It seems to be more concerned with
> misrepresentation than commercial considerations. This implies authors
> could be persuaded to release their work under a free license. For the
> purpose of our use, the site should explicitly mention a free license.
>
> Moreover it mentions BSkyB, BBC and ITN as copyright holders of some of
> the documents. Any migration to Wikisource must filter out such content.[1]
>
> Lastly there are a number of now declassified documents that provide vital
> evidence to reinforce the reports findings, these too need to be freely
> licensed.
>
>   -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
>
> [1] http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/terms-conditions/
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Robin Owain]

Thanks AndyJust Tweeted on @WiciCymru Twitter acc. Also on @WikimediaUK acc.RobinOn 06 July 2016 at 18:33 Andy Mabbett  wrote:It seems that the Chilcot Report is under Open Government licence (OGL) 3.0.Is anyone working to put it in Wikisource?Note that OGL exempts Crown logos and some other elements. Any thirdparty-content may not be under OGL.-- Andy Mabbett@pigsonthewinghttp://pigsonthewing.org.uk___Wikimedia UK mailing listwikimediau...@wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lWMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
 

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Andy Mabbett]

>From Twitter:

"#OfficialInquiries  project has
searchable plain text + HTML versions of #IraqInquiry
 up online http://

officialinquiries.atomatic.net
/

uk-parliament-iraq-inquiry
/

#OpenInfo "

  --  https://twitter.com/rufuspollock/status/750717375721377793

Source code is at:
https://github.com/official-inquiries/official-inquiries.com

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

On 6 Jul 2016 18:33, "Andy Mabbett"  wrote:

> It seems that the Chilcot Report is under Open Government licence (OGL)
> 3.0.
>
> Is anyone working to put it in Wikisource?
>
> Note that OGL exempts Crown logos and some other elements. Any third
> party-content may not be under OGL.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

[Charles Matthews]

> 
> On 06 July 2016 at 18:33 Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
> 
> It seems that the Chilcot Report is under Open Government licence (OGL)
> 3.0.
> 
> Is anyone working to put it in Wikisource?
> 
> Note that OGL exempts Crown logos and some other elements. Any third
> party-content may not be under OGL.
> 
> 

Nothing apparent on the Scriptorium
(https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium). 

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-report/ has files to read as PDFs. There might
indeed be reasons to put natively-digital files on English Wikisource, in
another format (MediaWiki HTML), assuming the licensing situation allows that.
For example, hyperlinking and annotation.

It would be as well, though, to get a rationale and intellectual property
assessment together, if anyone feels strongly about the availability of the
material for those and other purposes. 

Note that https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Annotations mentions
Wikibooks as a possible other site for heavy-duty annotation. The requirement to
"maintain neutrality and objectivity in all annotations" is naturally what we
expect, in the context of Wikimedian values, but might require serious
patrolling to enforce. Note also that "any annotation containing inferences,
assumptions, and/or suggestions" is banned. 

According to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Wikilinks, wikilinks are
considered a type of annotation. That's only a proposed guideline, by the way.

Of course it might be argued, for example, that simply posting the content would
make the report easier to search. That does sound more like Wikibooks, to me,
though.

Charles___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk