> They're claiming a copyright problem because some of the text of the page was taken from the Lora Alliance's official website.
Stolen content (i.e. content not explicitly licensed as GFDL/CC by the author) is stolen content.
Stolen content (i.e. content not explicitly licensed as GFDL/CC by the author) is stolen content.
Do you mean by wikipedia's definition of stolen? Because some things, like for instance: the description of Lora taken from the website that exists to provide descriptions of Lora to people, has an implicit usability.
Like I said, this irked me more than it probably should. I totally get sometimes stuff will get caught in the margins.
It's not a "free as in free beer" encyclopedia, it's a "free as in truly free" encyclopedia.
(Yes I know that this is only valid for the text content, images (e.g. logos) and screenshots are not free but used under different legal regimes in different countries)
To that, I say [citation needed]. Where in their mission statement do they state this particular stance on lawyer attacks?
that's not how copyright law works. you may argue that it should work that way, but it does not work that way unless you petition Congress to modify it
I'm not saying that Wikipedia should use content without the appropriate licensure, but in practice, copyright is violated as a matter of routine to provide some fairly basic services. Copyright law should be amended to prevent liability for conventional uses.
Come to think of it, that's not too different from how quotations work. So they might be able to deal with them.
> The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyright...