Talk:Medical cybernetics

Permisssion

I see this article has been taken with permission from an external site, does this permission grant full ability to redistribute the article under the GFDL? It must be redistributable under the GFDL, or be public domain, otherwise it can be removed. Please clarify, and include if possible any correspondence with the copyright owner of the text in question. Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 09:17, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I, as the copyright owner, herewith release the paragraph in question in public domain. --Jwdietrich2 20:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Could there be sent an email to Wikipedia:OTRS to verify this ? Some of the article text is released here under cc by 2.0, see also imprint. ----Erkan Yilmaz 05:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor User:Jwdietrich2, real name Dr. Johannes W. Dietrich, M.D., started this article himself, see here. Hereby he added the sense:

Taken from (with permission): Dietrich, J. W. (1999-2004). Medical Cybernetics - A Definition. Medizinische Kybernetik | Medical Cybernetics. http://www.medizinische-kybernetik.de/definition.html (13 Jun. 2004).

But given the fact he is the author of both text, the message "Taken from (with permission)" is redundant. When he signed in and released the text here, he already agreed to release it under GFDL. In this case there seems to be no need to confirm this even more. That will mean a third conformation, because the intial text was also released under a creative commons 2.0 attribution licence. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I do think the current one reference to the text is insufficient. I added four more reference tags and updated the description. This should do.

There are at least 3 aspects to consider here:

1. identifying: is the Wikipedia user really the person who has created the text on the external website ?

e.g. someone could register a nick here which has similarity with the real life identity of someone else

or: the text on the external website may be from another party

2. if answer to 2 is proven as yes: is there a permission available to use the external text also under Wikipedia's licence ?

because cc and gfdl don't harmonize, but:

the cc copyright owner may additionally publish and distribute the material under any terms she chooses.

3. is the text accurate info given knowledge at this point of time ? ----Erkan Yilmaz 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you just misjudged the situation. I can't think of a single reason to mistrust the situation. The discussion you initially responded to seem to be settled about five years ago. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to mention, I already did check the licencing information on the source, see here and in English see here. It states you are free:

1. to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
2. to Remix — to adapt the work
3. (with) 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).

That CC template gives no restriction concerning the work "not beeing allowed to be used commercially". Now this is similar to several templates I have seen when I moved pictures from flick to Wikicommons. I am pretty sure the CC template is compatable with the GDFL licence. But if you insist, we could ask the copyright helpdesk here in Wikipedia. I am pretty sure in a matter settled five years ago there is no need to verify the id of an user. But again, if you insist...!?

Here is a very short info how I perceive things (keep in mind: I am no lawyer to really judge it):

See other people's comments if cc-by can be used as gfdl text: CC-BY compatability issue, remove from FAQ?, [1]

In any case: it would be great if the copyright owner proves that the WP-account is used by him really (which the person using the WP-account actually stated already; so, it would just take a mail to OTRS, perhaps with just making a link from the external website to a diff here on WP would be sufficient?). ----Erkan Yilmaz 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand, what that discussion is about. I only experienced picture from Flickr being moved to wikicommons in similar situation, whic was no problem. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)