User talk:

From Esolang
Jump to: navigation, search

Please don't copy articles from Wikipedia. Like it says IN BOLD on every editing page here, and on Esolang:Copyrights, submitting copyrighted work here is not legal.

I'm assuming you aren't the author of the Wikipedia "Braintwist" article. If you are, then it's fine, but it would be a good idea to point that out next time. --Graue 17:37, 1 Sep 2005 (GMT)

"Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia"
"Free content, or free information, is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content upon which no legal restriction has been placed that significantly interferes with people's freedom to use, redistribute, improve, and share the content. Importantly, when free content is modified, expanded, or incorporated within another work, the resulting work must be legally distributable, either just as freely as or under less restrictive terms than the original."
Sorry if I have misunderstood anything, but isn't Public Domain as free as you get? X_x -BodyTag 08:57, 2 Sep 2005 (GMT)
Wikipedia's content is released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. It cannot be re-released as public domain - such is the nature of the FDL. --Safalra 09:59, 2 Sep 2005 (GMT)
I realize that, and I am sorry. But if that's the definition of free content, I still think that's a somewhat misleading description of Wikipedia. -BodyTag 12:40, 2 Sep 2005 (GMT)
Regardless of being free content, you failed to acknowledge the authorship of the article - which is the wikipedia community. Here's a brief blurb from
"The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely.
This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed
so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article
used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will
remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom."

Essentially, you're allowed to quote the article and even freely modify it and change it, so long as you say that you originally obtained the article from --Wildhalcyon Sometime

Actually, Wikipedia is under the GNU "Free" Documentation License, which, in addition to being long, contrived, and impractical, is thoroughly non-free. The idea that it's "free content" is a joke. The FDL is so impossible to work with that rewriting articles from scratch is usually easier.
By the way, "the wikipedia community" cannot hold copyrights. The authorship of the Braintwist article is Esrogs and Athas. The authorship of the Brainfuck article is 404notfound, Gtrmp, Flarn2005,,, etc. ...that's who you would have to credit, next to your 12-page copy of the FDL, if you printed out Wikipedia's "free content" Brainfuck article, and that's why this wiki doesn't bother with such silliness. --Graue 20:09, 2 Sep 2005 (GMT)
It's strange the while the GPL is such a success, the FDL is such a mess (especially compared with the Creative Commons licences). I suppose it's because they tried to cram the complexity into a single licence, whereas CC has a set of licences. --Safalra 20:30, 2 Sep 2005 (GMT)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.