Skip to main content
I cringe every time when I see uncopyrightable mathematical tables or oscilloscope graphs are cited in a book with a "copyright" or "reprinted with permissions" notice...
grin
grin  
•
what about "copyright Wikipedia" or "© OpenStreetMap" (only) attributions? May be best intentions but, uh.
niconiconi [MOVED]
niconiconi [MOVED]  
•
How does CC BY work in a large project? It's something I don't fully understand. Apparently according to Wikipedia's guideline, just attributing collective to "Wikipedia contributors" is acceptable. But I don't really know why it works - I guess it's because an article has a page history, and citing to the page is sufficient for an indirect attribution...
niconiconi [MOVED]
niconiconi [MOVED]  
•
Ah, found it! Yes, I was right.

> and must acknowledge the contributors (which can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#License

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
grin
grin  
•
indeed, CC requests attribution by *any* good means, usually by URL or to point the specific #wikipedia article/language, which does have the public history. Same goes for #OSM since by knowing the area the history can be retrieved. (ODbL aside.)
#OSM #Wikipédia
grin
grin  
•
the original point was, however, that © is a stricly restricting message while CC_By-Sa is not so much, especially when they neglect to link to the original.
Also there are things which *ARE* copyrighted (or ™'ed) by Wikimedia Foundation (mostly official/legal stuff).
⇧