[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 167 KB, 600x458, neil gaiman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3222409 No.3222409 [Reply] [Original]

Why haven't you started publishing Wikipedia articles for money?

http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5167894.Hephaestus_Books

>> No.3222412

>>3222409

Is that legal?

>> No.3222418
File: 26 KB, 605x179, capitalism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3222418

>>3222412
Evidently: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/c/hephaestus-books

>> No.3222428

>>3222412
No. They violate Wikipedia's copyright license (CC-BY-SA) if they charge for these books.

This part specifically:
>Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

>> No.3222440

>>3222428
See>>3222418

>> No.3222441

>>3222440
Yes, I realize they are on that website. It doesn't make it legal.

>> No.3222459

>>3222441
>Hephaestus Books publishes print-on-demand COMPILATIONS OF WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES -- NOT ORIGINAL WORKS. Caveat Emptor.

>If you feel that doing a free search of WIkipedia is not worth your time compared to paying someone to print out Wikipedia articles for you, then these books may be of interest.

>Share Alike--If you alter, transform, or build upon this work (as in, convert it into book form), you MAY DISTRIBUTE THE RESULTING WORK ONLY UNDER THE SAME, SIMILAR, OR A COMPATIBLE LICENSE.

As long as they don't use the new product as a way to circumvent the Wikipedia end-user license, they are allowed to reproduce the work.

>> No.3222465

>>3222459
But they ARE circumventing CC-BY-SA by distributing it as paid content (incompatible with CC-BY-SA).

>> No.3222478

>>3222465
Where does it say that they can't charge for their books?

>> No.3222482

that's self publishing for you

>> No.3222501

>>3222478
You're right. I was mistakenly applying traits of GFDL to CC-BY-SA.

Still pretty scummy.

>> No.3222509

>>3222465

tfw CC has not held up once in a court case in america, and yet you retards act as though it was an actual protection.