User talk:(WT-en) Zeeshan M

Hello Zeeshan M! Welcome to Wikivoyage. Please take a sec to look at our copyleft and policies and guidelines, but feel free to plunge forward and edit some pages. Scanning the Manual of style, especially the article templates, can give you a good idea of how we like articles formatted. If you need help, check out Project:Help, and if you need some info not on there, post a message in the travellers' pub.

Thankyou for contributing to the discussion concerning redistribution of Wikivoyage content. The prime reason that your website has been picked on by both Wikivoyage and Wiktionary is that your website carries the statement Copyright © 2003-2004 Zeeshan Muhammad. All rights reserved.

1. Copyright - The copyright of Wikivoyage content is held, in common, by all Wikivoyage contributors.
2. All rights reserved - While redistributors have the right to freely redistribute Wikivoyage content they do not have the right to claim ownership.

The above copyright notice implies you own the material when you do not. In some legal jurisdictions such a claim is considered theft. In any case you are making a misleading claim about the content of your website. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:47, 20 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Copyright notice is valid, it represents ownership of underlining textual code, design elements, graphical media and any non-source-disclosed content.

The focal content source is clearly labeled, view Wiktionary discussion prior to expanding this Wiki thread. - (WT-en) Zeeshan M 19:40, 21 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Zeeshan, I'm sorry but that's not the way copyright works. If you have anything underlying, like the code you use to make the mirror, that would have your copyright, if you were to publish it. As it is that stuff is "non-source-disclosed" as you put it, which means that it is a secret. The place you would put a copyright notice is in your secret files, in case they ever were published by accident.

Meanwhile, what's so terrible about changing the copyright notice to something that Wikivoyageers like Nils could live with? You still get the hits, you still get to have the ads, in other words you still get all of the benifits of your website, and of using wikivoyage content. As far as I can tell it would do absolutely no harm to you at all.

For that matter, it would be nice, if not absolutely necessary for you to contribute your CSS, and mirroring script back to the community. Not that it matters too much since we're going to write one anyhow, but still you continue to get all of the benefits of having your site up, including the ad revenue. -- (WT-en) Mark 04:59, 22 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Thank you for your response. The phrase 'non-source-disclosed content' implies content which has not been fetched from listed sources. In the case of Open Dictionary, any content not explicitly fetched from WordNet or Wiktionary.

In response to your second paragraph, regarding the contributions notices, this is what I am currently developing a solution to' in order to follow the CCPL-sa within technical boundary. The travel.new-frontier.info Web site was disabled due to this and as a sign of respect to Nils. View previous Wiki threads for better understanding (view 'Theft' thread under Pub).

The underlining code is distributed (for commercial gain) upon interest and indeed had its ownership rights to me. -- (WT-en) Zeeshan M 07:52, 22 Apr 2004 (EDT)

OK, I think I see the problem. I'm assuming that you meant to say "underlying code", and that that's the thing you want to claim copyright over. That doesn't require you to put your copyright notice on a website produced using that code. Here's an example: Oracle software is used in the production of the website www.chicagotribune.com, but the copyright holder is not Oracle, but the producer of the content, the Chicago Tribune.

Whatever script you are using to mirror the Wikivoyage site is yours. You hold the sole copyright to that software, and you may do with it as you please. I think it's probably even reasonable to say that some of the HTML it produces might be yours too, though this is probably a derivative work, and therefore subject to the derivative works clause of the by-sa. No matter, the software which produces that HTML is unquestionably yours, and yours alone.

The thing you do not need to claim is the content, in which we hold copyright, so putting your copyright notice on the content pretty much does you no good whatever. What would do you some good is instead of having a copyright notice (which is unnessisary in any case under the Berne convention), put in something like "This Wikivoyage mirror is generated and updated by SUPER WIKI MIRROR SOFTWARE". Then link out to the page where you sell your software. Make sense? -- (WT-en) Mark 08:28, 22 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Huttite: the copyright of Wikivoyage content is not held in common by all Wikivoyage contributors. It's held by the contributors to each page. Each page on Wikivoyage is a separate work. --(WT-en) Evan 11:09, 20 Apr 2004 (EDT)