Talk:Awari Oracle

From Wikimanqala

Net! --Viktor 20:50, 21 August 2008 (CEST)

One should perhaps add that I started the article on manqala.org/wiki/index.php/MancalaGames/ before it was moved to this place. --Mancala lover 16:46, 23 August 2008 (CEST)

I thought you agreed with what we talked by e-mail before creating wikimanQala. I mean, everything published in the old wiki was public domain, as there was no recorded author. Anyway, as you can see, there's not even a single sentence remaining from your artice in the old wiki. [1]

By the way, congratulations! I've seen the article in your new wiki and it seems that, after two years and so many arguments and "Viktor bashing" on the list [2], you have realised the oracle does not compute itself, but retrieves the results already stored in the database...

Also, about the copyright notices on your new wiki:

a) You add links to wikipedia articles, but not to wikimanqala articles. Look at Wikimanqala:Copyrights and Wikimanqala:Why wikimanqala doesn't use the GFDL#A_lightweight_alternative. It's just a suggestion, but if you do this with wikipedia, it would be coherent to do it also with wikimanqala.

Wikipedia uses GFDL, which explicitly states that a link to the original article must be given. This isn't the case for CC-by-SA. However, the name of the original author (or pseudonym, if applicable) should be given, if the article is CC-by-SA, but it's not necessary to give the names of later "editors" who aren't "authors". - --Mancala lover 11:02, 25 August 2008 (CEST)

Quote: "All that needs to be included are copyright notices, author attribution, and the URL of the license." - what I did on Wikinfo and Mancala World. - --Mancala lover 11:32, 25 August 2008 (CEST)

Where in the GFDL text is explicitly stated that a link to the original article must be given? I can not find it. However, the wikipedia says: You may be able to partially fulfill the latter two obligations by providing a conspicuous direct link back to the Wikipedia article hosted on this website. i.e. "you may", not "you must", as is said in wikimanQala: a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement. Both in wikipedia and wikimanQala examples a link or URL is given. So I thought it would be fair that, if you link to wikipedia, you would also link here. --Viktor 17:12, 25 August 2008 (CEST)

b) On the articles you wrote here, and if in the version you copied from here you are the only contributor, you have the whole copyright of the text, so you don't need to give credit to wikimanqala. --Viktor 18:05, 24 August 2008 (CEST)

That's nice, but I believe that the articles here have actually joint copyright owners: the author(s) AND Wikimanqala (ie. you by default). - --Mancala lover 11:41, 25 August 2008 (CEST)

Do as you want, but you have the copyright of your own work. You just licensed it under cc by sa 2.5 and allowed wikimanQala to use it. --Viktor 17:12, 25 August 2008 (CEST)

When everything in the old wiki was really "public domain" (as you claim), you could hardly license it afterwards. This would be copyright fraught. The authors were recorded, not by name, but at least their IP number. It was perfectly clear who was the IP number and I stated my authorship of all the articles I started on my user page (here at wikimanqala). Please note that an editor (somebody who is correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes) is not an "author", but a proof-reader (although such a person is often wrongly called "author" on wikis). Therefore you are the only author of the Hoyito article (thanks for crediting me, but Mr. Mancala isn't). --Mancala lover 10:55, 25 August 2008 (CEST)

This is the original mail you answered me when we were talking about licences:

De: "Ralf Gering" <peace_panther@hotmail.com>
A: viktor@drac.com
Data: 2006-05-11 07:30

Hello Víktor,

>In fact, the main problem will be licenses. Right now, there are no
>licenses, so I think this mean everything is probably public domain, as
>there is no recorded author, except for the things first published on the
>list... 

>I think I'll put the new wiki with a cc-sa-by license... What do
>you think?

cc-by-sa would be good as everybody

1) may redistribute our data for free.
2) must put published modifications of the data under same license.
3) must put published deriverates (maps, things created using the data)
under same license.

I grant you the permission to use my contributions to the Yahoo! Group 
MancalaGames in the new ManqalaWiki under the new licence. And, I don't 
believe you get troubles because of Diffusion (I can ask Mark) or Tea Party.

Another problem can arise, however, when people upload pics or texts which 
are not under free licence. Also, all kind of spam (including sex photos) is 
increasingly becoming a problem.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of photos of Mancala games which are already 
public domain and could be added to our wikipedia. I also own quite a few 
Mancala boards and could take photos of them to provide illustrations for 
our Wiki.

Great idea!

Ralf

I told you my ideas about the old wiki (public domain) and about whatever was first published on the list.

You said nothing about the old wiki but proposed to used your work on the list as cc by sa. So, as you didn't put any objection, I assumed you agreed about the public domain thing. Was I wrong?

And about giving another license to some work on the public domain, I think it's done every day. Microsoft did it with his TCP/IP stack, Wikipedia does it with the 11th edition of Britannica.

Anyway, if you see an article that you first created on the list, and you have no credit, tell me. Well, in fact you could make a minor edition and your name would be added to the contributors list. --Viktor 17:12, 25 August 2008 (CEST)