From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computational Biology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computational Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computational Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.


You (somebody) said "This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of, 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 ... 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 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 removed

E-mail returned - why was it removed in the first place?

from            Dan Bolser <>
date            02-Jul-2007 08:26        
subject         MetaBase         

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!


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)

Article first draft.[edit]

Hopefully this first 'proper' draft is OK for inclusion in WikiPedia. It could surely be better. --Dan|(talk) 07:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)