Here's a nicely packaged book about the Tudor Mary Boleyn, retailing at over £10. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mary-Boleyn-Sister...7726102&sr=8-16

Prominent on the cover is that it is compiled from Wikipedia articles. Causing the Wikipedia editor who wrote them to complain on Jimbo's page. Followed by the reply 'tough'.

Why do none of them know what CC-BY-SA means?

Franky I never understood it. Here is the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CC-BY-SA . Where does it explicitly say that what you write may be used by someone else for commercial purposes?

Definition d. - "Distribute" means to make available to the public the original and copies of the Work or Adaptation, as appropriate, through sale or other transfer of ownership (my bolding). From Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

I would be interested in whether the publishers have tried to copyright "their" book, as the terms of the license does not allow a more onerous restriction that that of CCSA.

It has to be pieced to together true, but should you not understand what it is you are doing when you license something. OTOH I did see a bunch of the WP:Commons lot wanting to obscure the issue further by getting flickr to rename their CC-BY-SA button as "License for use on wikipedia".

Interestingly enough, I don't think that Wikimedia will allow those sort of images except under fair use.

Peter Damian: It's easier to see when you contrast CC-BY-SA-NC to CC-BY-SA. One explicitly forbids commercial use, the other does not.

Wikipedia won't use CC-BY-SA-NC. Accessibility is one of the main goals of Wikipedia. Mirrors and forks are among the tools used to make information accessible, and they become even more important if Wikipedia ever is blocked, filtered, or taken down. Wikipedia wants its content to be easily redistributed, and I approve ("information wants to be free").

Attaching NC to the license makes it difficult to run a mirror or fork since it's makes it difficult to run ads, and mirrors and forks can't expect to receive to receive the amount of donations Wikipedia receives.

NC would also make it difficult for Wikipedia to run ads if they ever needed to in the future.

The advantages of not using NC outweigh its disadvantages. I'm just happy BY (attribution) is used. SA (Share-alike) also ensures that derivative works contain the same or similar license. There should be a "Do you agree to the terms of our license" checkbox or something in order to avoid confusion.

Silly, silly, silly. They could simply require a license to create a free encyclopaedia. No need to insist on allowing the cobbling together of third rate books to be sold to the unsuspecting public at exhorbitant prices, nor for media files to be turned into postcards, cafepress wall clocks, and other such tat, none of which they'll get any kudos for anyway.

The NC licenses haven't hindered either the EOL or TOL projects.

I was saying that it would hinder their forks, not the originals.

They can cover that aspect in the license too. You can allow for official WP printing, and mirrors, and forks, all so long as the fork/mirror is in accordance with providing a free encyclopaedia. Requiring content creators to license for 3rd party repackaging is not required.

The entire reason why Wikipedia does not use a "NC" license is so Jimmy and friends can lift content from Wikipedia and move it to Wikia, if it so pleases them to do so, so that they can make money directly off of it. Not using "NC" also means they can run ads if they want, although they've admittedly shown no interest in doing so any time soon.

I suspect most people who contribute to Wikipedia believe that their content will not be used to enrich third parties, and would be fairly annoyed to find out that this is not the case.

What if you only wish to mirror / archive a single webpage (eg. WebCitation)? That doesn't fulfill the requirement of providing a free encyclopedia.

I doubt that's true, given the recent plethora of over-priced print on demand books on Amazon that are simply reprints of Wikipedia articles.

I suspect you'll find that not many Wikipedians are aware of these books, and of those who are, not a small number are likely annoyed about them. I know I've seen Wikipedians complaining about them.

I've complained about them myself, and as you say, I've seen others complain about them as well. But not so much that they enrich any third-party but that they are vastly over-priced. A fair profit for the cost of production, given the purchaser knows that the exact same content is available online for free and has nevertheless chosen to buy a paper copy, well, where's the harm in that? Caveat emptor.

Most uses of webcitation will general fall into the category of non-commercial.

Kelly is most likely correct that in the early days they thought they might be something like a linux distro making mucho mullah off the work of kids.

CC by SA by NC, my A-S-S.

Licenses and legalese mean very little once you cross a national border. And since WP wants to be the trans-national "encyclopediapseudothing", those finely devised Creative Commons license terms will be worth less than the hard-drive space they occupy.

I already predicted that people will inevitably start stealing Wikipedia content and republishing it for profit. Every time I said that before, people pooh-poohed, because of the "magic of Creative Commons". Or that it "would not be profitable" to print all that "content" on dead trees. If you can find the person(s) who put out that book, feel free to ask if the book is making any money or not.

I suspect Kelly is right about there not being a commerce clause in the "official" license, for the simple reason that Wales wants to steal the content himself!

Only thing I can add: you will see more books like this in the future.

You're absolutely right of course. But there's no real value in a collection of freely available encyclopedia articles in paper form; the value is in the detailed work that focuses on one or two of them, which isn't freely available and editors can potentially profit from, through the Wikipedia link.

Exactly. It's supply AND demand, not supply OR demand. Just because they're for sale doesn't mean anyone's buying them.

Anyway, this is basically like giving money to homeless bums. Once you write a Wikipedia article it has ceased to be yours, just like when you give a money to a bum the fact that he may spend it on cheap wine is none of your business.

I seriously doubt that anyone anywhere is getting rich off of this. In fact, if Wikipedia quality is as low as we generally say it is around these parts (and, on average, it probably is), then there's really no profit to be made here (or as Malleus says, caveat emptor), and that's ON TOP of the fact that the same shitty content is available for free.

YouTube has recently added a dropbox where CC-BY-SA can be selected for every video uploaded by a user, additionally to the "Standard YouTube Copyright". Lawsuit galore!

I was also one of the people complaining about these companies in the past. I mean, most of the ones I saw were on sale on Amazon for $100! And they always do their best to marginalize the fact that they were Wikipedia articles or move that information into a hard to find place. It's essentially a scam, just with a complete legal backing.

I mean, we have an article on the biggest of the companies, Books LLC (T-H-L-K-D). The deletion discussion from February for it is fun to read.

In fact, this Barnes and Noble book doesn't even say anything about Wikipedia on it that I can find. It's obviously on the inside cover, but how are you going to check that without buying it?

Actually, considering this, that idea might make some sense. To sum it up, a flickr user saw his images on Wikipedia and went ballistic with girly fits and cartooney threats. He absolutely refused to consider the possibility that hit the wrong button when he uploaded his images to flickr and chose the license.

What that they have a "License for wikipedia" box? Issue is that a BY-SA license is much more than a simple "License for wikipedia" its also a license for monsanto, news international, virgin media, cafepress tat-maker, and eBay tat-sellers.

Two issues with the referenced account. If someone makes a mistake in the licenses, WP editors shouldn't be doing a "ya ya, luzer tough tittie" dance it inflames. Second that some accounts also full of stuff collected from the web-a-ma-jig. A large number of online users have the idea, promulgated by the freetards, that anything found on he intertubes is public domain, thus they can stick it in a flickr account with a CC-BY license. Great swathes of Commons material (especially, not not limited to, porn) is culled from the web or other flickr accounts and re licensed that way. In may cases you'll find that a few weeks after someone snaffled the content, the flickr account it came from is deleted by flickr, most usual reason is because it was detected hovering up web porn.

Commons uploaders really need to do far more diligence than just relying on a CC license on the page. In my experience the licenses is no more than an indication that the work is probably OK to use. WP shouldn't misrepresent the issue by talking about BY-SA as simply a license for use on wikipedia.

Your last point is something to think about as it's likely that some of the stuff uploaded to flickr and given a cc-by-sa license might have been stolen from someplace else but that's not the case here. The flickr user who hosted these images deleted them off his account because they were "stolen by wikipedia thieves".

On the button, what if it said "by clicking this button you might not only see your work on wikipedia but on monsanto, news international, virgin media, cafepress tat-maker, and eBay tat-sellers or even printed in books and travel brochures and there not a damn thing you can do about it".

On your first point I agree and if I were active in commons deletion debates I would have !voted to delete the image but others won't, not because they are by nature mean people but because they are humans with feelings and many people when being called "scumbags" and "thieves" don't feel any obligation to do shit for you. If this guy came right out and conceded that he might have hit the wrong button in the commons deletion discussion the result may have been different.

Someone is angry we must teach him to respect us.

The CC button on flickr means no more than it is more likely to be free than not. Almost every reuser, other than bloggers, have made contact with me wrt to licensing CC content. That way they get a verified chain of consent. Now you have a user that probably had numerous images on flickr all now gone, unlikely that he'll ever reuse a CC license, and is some one that will talk of WP as a bunch of thieving scumbags for years to come. And for what? A Black Tailed Prairie Dog in a zoo, of which there are 100+ on commons. And it looks like his primary beef was that it was attributed to his daft username on flickr instead of this real name.