|WikiProject Computational Biology||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://biodatabase.org. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2007070210004011.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.
You (somebody) said "This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of http://biodatabase.org/index.php/Main_Page, and no assertion of permission has been made. (CSD G12)". I am very sorry for doing things wrong (as usual), but I am on of the creators of http://biodatabase.org ... The whole of BioDatabase.Org is licensed under the terms of the BioLicense, and is therefore free to use. I don't know how to make this clear in WikiPedia terms... I probably need to tag something somewhere somehow? It gets harder and harder to contribute to WikiPedia these days, hopefully, one day, foundation willing, WikiPedia will cease to be a user contributed resource all together, and then we can all be happy again... right? Seriously though, the copyright of BioDatabase has been released into the public domain. --Dan|(talk) 06:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Below is a copy of the email I sent to firstname.lastname@example.org in response to this silliness. Looking at my talk page this is the third time content I have supplied that has been directly or indirectly covered by the BioLicense (two images and this page) has been deleted. Of course you need to remove restricted content from WikiPedia, but the objection that the content is too non-restrictive does not seem logical - it seems to go against the very principle of CopyLeft and WikiPedia --Dan|(talk) 06:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
E-mail returned - why was it removed in the first place?
from Dan Bolser <email@example.com> to firstname.lastname@example.org date 02-Jul-2007 08:26 subject MetaBase mailed-by gmail.com MetaBase and all of its (clearly marked) user-contributed content is freely licensed under the terms of the BioLicense. This licence allows for free use of the content by anyone at any time for any purpose in any form, commercial or otherwise. This licence *does not* conflict with the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), rather it upholds the very core meaning of all such 'copy left' licences. I created an article on WikiPedia called [[MetaBase]] using a tiny snippet of text from http://BioDatabase.Org, and got landed with all kinds of confusing notices and warnings. I hope the above explanation is enough to get this article accepted, as the content of MetaBase is freely licence (and this is only an article describing MetaBase, not a dump of content from it). Please let me know if there is anything further I need to explain, or any further administrative hoops that I need to jump through, as I am willing to do exactly just enough of this technical 'stuff' necessary to get the page accepted (on those grounds at least). For the record, I would like to complain about the increasing (and in this case blatantly unnecessary) bureaucracy that is growing around WikiPedia. You are your own worst enemy! Sincerely, Dan Bolser (Creator and non-copyright holder of MetaBase).
- Here is a link to the copyright licence used at http://BioDatabase.Org which explains the details under which content may be used;
If, after sorting out this licence shenanigans, you decide to delete this article on the grounds of content, please be patient. I am going to improve this article shortly. --Dan|(talk) 06:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I sense your frustration, but please understand that Wikipedia has to take copyright issues very seriously. The easiest thing for you to do is probably to license your website under the GFDL in addition to the BioLicense. Also, keeping in mind that we're all volunteers here and there is no general systemic copyright patrol, whenever you copy text from your website to Wikipedia, you should make a note on the article's talk page explaining how it is licensed. Finally, you should be sure to review Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. I'm not saying, I'm just saying. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks 07:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)