Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

Wiki vs. Wikipedia

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

Wiki vs. Wikipedia

Postby MIG29pilot » Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:05 pm

Hi!
I have noticed that many of the aircraft articles in FlightGear lack a lot real and detailed information about the real life aircraft. However, in Wikipedia there is of course a wealth of Information about every aircraft you could imagine. My question is this is the content of Wikipedia, licensed under the Creative Commons License, compatible with FlightGear and the FlightGear wiki?
User avatar
MIG29pilot
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 4:03 pm
Location: 6 feet under Snow
Callsign: MIG29pilot
Version: 3.7nightly
OS: Windows 10

Re: Wiki vs. Wikipedia

Postby Hooray » Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:07 pm

please don't just blindly copy wikipedia articles/info over to the fg wiki, if in doubt, add a link using the wikipedia template

thanks
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11340
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Wiki vs. Wikipedia

Postby Johan G » Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:48 pm

Also note that license used by Wikipedia, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA 3.0 Uported), and the one used by the FlightGear wiki, the GNU General Public License, version 2 (GPLv2), are different and not 100% fully compatible, though I unfortunately do not remember the details. I think the GPLv2 license was to permissive to use for CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed works.

In any case rephrasing and maybe a slight reduction, instead of a verbatim copy, is always a good practice when handling text, regardless of license. (The exception of course being quotes. ;) )
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube video)
Improving the Dassault Mirage F1 (Wiki, Forum, GitLab. Work in slow progress)
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 5527
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit

Re: Wiki vs. Wikipedia

Postby gsagostinho » Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:01 am

@Johan I think GPLv2 is permissive for CC0 and CC-BY but NOT CC-BY-SA, since "share alike" means sharing using the same license, in which case isn't the GNU license.
User avatar
gsagostinho
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Wiki vs. Wikipedia

Postby Johan G » Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:20 pm

@Gilberto: I think so, but there might be some incompatible clauses in CC-BY (depending on the version of that license). I have read about it, but do not remember for sure, and have not compared the licenses myself.


Just to add some confusion, note that there is there is also a distinction between permissive and restrictive kinds of open source licenses, for example BSD and GPL respectively.

Restrictive open source licenses are often called copyleft licenses. This does in no way imply works under them are not copyrighted, as copyrighting works under them is a necessity if a license should be of any use. In essence if a work is copyrighted, it has an owner who can apply a license and, if needed and possible, enforce it.

Licenses are a legal minefield. :roll:
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube video)
Improving the Dassault Mirage F1 (Wiki, Forum, GitLab. Work in slow progress)
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 5527
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit

Re: Wiki vs. Wikipedia

Postby gsagostinho » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:18 pm

Johan G wrote in Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:20 pm:@Gilberto: I think so, but there might be some incompatible clauses in CC-BY (depending on the version of that license).

Sure, you are absolutely correct AFAIK. But my main point was rather that NO version of CC-BY-SA is compatible with GPL. I should have anyway wrote that, for the other licenses, compatibility may depend on the version and even some interpretation of what each license really means (there were huge discussions about it regarding the c172p in the list some time ago).

Licenses are a legal minefield. :roll:

Totally!
User avatar
gsagostinho
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Wiki vs. Wikipedia

Postby Gijs » Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:31 am

Just to re-iterate what's been said before (apart from licensing): the FlightGear wiki is meant to provide FlightGear specific information. Lengthy descriptions about the history of aircraft, (real) development etc. are better of on Wikipedia. It's okay to write a paragraph or two to introduce the aircraft, but for further general information, a link to the corresponding Wikipedia article has more value.

Cheers,
Gijs
Airports: EHAM, EHLE, KSFO
Aircraft: 747-400
User avatar
Gijs
Moderator
 
Posts: 9378
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Amsterdam/Delft, the Netherlands
Callsign: PH-GYS
Version: Git
OS: Windows 10

Re: Wiki vs. Wikipedia

Postby Johan G » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:16 pm

Gijs wrote in Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:31 am:the FlightGear wiki is meant to provide FlightGear specific information. Lengthy descriptions about the history of aircraft, (real) development etc. are better of on Wikipedia. [...] for further general information, a link to the corresponding Wikipedia article has more value.

+1 on that (at least when it comes to aircraft, airports and locations).
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube video)
Improving the Dassault Mirage F1 (Wiki, Forum, GitLab. Work in slow progress)
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 5527
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit


Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest