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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8 July 2016 at 15:42, とある白い猫 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
