Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Embedding Wikipedia?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
9 replies to this topic

#1 coderWalker   Members   -  Reputation: 127

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:40 PM

I have a program that scans a file for erorrs. Then if it finds them it lists out the errors.
The only part that I am missing is something that explains the errors in detial to a user.

This is a commercial program that I plan to sell in the US.
Can I just navigate the WebBrowser object to a wikipedia page explaining the problem?
Would that break any copyright laws?

Thanks in advance.
If this post was helpful please +1 or like it !

Webstrand

Sponsor:

#2 frob   Moderators   -  Reputation: 20349

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:49 PM

Wikipedia would probably not approve of hosting your error messages. They would most likely be taken down. You should host them on your own server.

There is no problem with pointing a browser to a web page. Many programs do this for help and support.
Check out my personal indie blog at bryanwagstaff.com.

#3 coderWalker   Members   -  Reputation: 127

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:54 PM

Wikipedia would probably not approve of hosting your error messages. They would most likely be taken down. You should host them on your own server.

There is no problem with pointing a browser to a web page. Many programs do this for help and support.


I don't mean host my error messages there.

An example:

In the program on the "Error Info" tab it would list the error and where it occured. For the example we'll say a favicon not found error.
On the Details tab it would have a BrowserObject that navigates automatically to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favicon.

So my program would be finding the error, then displaying general information about the item that has the error in a browser object with the URI "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favicon"
If this post was helpful please +1 or like it !

Webstrand

#4 Tom Sloper   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9588

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:56 PM

Can I just navigate the WebBrowser object to a wikipedia page explaining the problem?
Would that break any copyright laws?

Wikipedia would probably not approve of hosting your error messages.
There is no problem with pointing a browser to a web page. Many programs do this for help and support.


coder, are you saying that the explanations are already on Wikipedia, and you would send your users to Wikipedia? [Answer given while I was asking it]
I don't see how Wikipedia would object to getting more visitors.

Edited by Tom Sloper, 25 June 2012 - 12:58 PM.

-- Tom Sloper
Sloperama Productions
Making games fun and getting them done.
www.sloperama.com

Please do not PM me. My email address is easy to find, but note that I do not give private advice.

#5 coderWalker   Members   -  Reputation: 127

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:06 PM

I don't see how Wikipedia would object to getting more visitors.

I am displaying the page inside my program as opposed to in a seperate user agent, does that matter?
(just making sure to cover all bases)
Also would it be better to link somewhere else more creditable than Wikipedia? Opinions?

[Answer given while I was asking it]

neat Posted Image
If this post was helpful please +1 or like it !

Webstrand

#6 Tom Sloper   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9588

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:14 PM


I don't see how Wikipedia would object to getting more visitors.

I am displaying the page inside my program as opposed to in a seperate user agent, does that matter?


Yes, it could. You should check with your lawyer.
-- Tom Sloper
Sloperama Productions
Making games fun and getting them done.
www.sloperama.com

Please do not PM me. My email address is easy to find, but note that I do not give private advice.

#7 Amadeus H   Members   -  Reputation: 1180

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:37 AM

Not a lawyer. But text on wikipedia is under the Creative Commons license allowing you:
  • to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
  • to Remix—to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
  • 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.


#8 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4684

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:40 AM

Not a lawyer. But text on wikipedia is under the Creative Commons license allowing you:

  • to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
  • to Remix—to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
  • 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.

This. Exactly.

However... though even if it's quite clear even to every non-lawyer, it's not all that easy. As always.
  • Attribution goes to the respective authors of the pages, not to Wikimedia Foundation. Which means you must look them up in the edits page first, and this leaves you with "names" like Pmsyyz, Andyvn22, 122.176.67.53, 76.68.45.34, 70.171.247.181, 67.187.213.172 and 200 others.
  • You can be rather sure that Wikimedia Foundation sees (1.) differently. Even if they are rather obviously wrong, they can still sue you, at least in the USA. They may not win, but it will cost you thousands even before the first hearing.
  • There are the Terms of Service in addition to the CC-SA, which you implicitly accept by visiting or downloading content from Wikipedia. This is about using their servers' CPU time and bandwidth, not about the actual content. Although the ToS read quite friendly at first sight (such as "wants to ensure that the content that we host can be re-used by other users without fear of liability and that it is not infringing the proprietary rights of others"), they are, like all ToS/EULAs far too long to read and understand in all its details without doing the equivalent of a PhD thesis.
  • Even if it is explicitly allowed to use and adapt and share the content, the ToS (like all ToS) reserves the right for them to shut down your access. So, even if they do not have base for a lawsuit, Wikimedia Foundation can at any time take measures to prevent your program from using their service (and if you circumvent these, they do have a valid base for a lawsuit).

Edited by samoth, 26 June 2012 - 03:40 AM.


#9 Amadeus H   Members   -  Reputation: 1180

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:11 AM

Attribution goes to the respective authors of the pages, not to Wikimedia Foundation. Which means you must look them up in the edits page first, and this leaves you with "names" like Pmsyyz, Andyvn22, 122.176.67.53, 76.68.45.34, 70.171.247.181, 67.187.213.172 and 200 others.


I thought you could attribute the licensor (in this case: Wikipedia) directly, as stated in the "authors or licensor" clause. I hate law. Thank god I'm not in the states :)

#10 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 855

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2012 - 10:08 AM

See http://en.wikipedia....kipedia_content .

However... though even if it's quite clear even to every non-lawyer, it's not all that easy. As always.

  • Attribution goes to the respective authors of the pages, not to Wikimedia Foundation. Which means you must look them up in the edits page first, and this leaves you with "names" like Pmsyyz, Andyvn22, 122.176.67.53, 76.68.45.34, 70.171.247.181, 67.187.213.172 and 200 others.
  • You can be rather sure that Wikimedia Foundation sees (1.) differently. Even if they are rather obviously wrong, they can still sue you, at least in the USA. They may not win, but it will cost you thousands even before the first hearing.

They say that a list of authors is fine. Though they say it's also fine to instead attribute by linking to the Wikipedia page (which contains the list of authors already).
http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS