On 8 July 2016 at 15:42, とある白い猫 <to.aru.shiroi.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Unless explicitly stated we need to exclude anything
that isn't freely
licensed. This is per existing policy that should be familiar to everyone.
I haven't seen anyone say otherwise so I'm not sure what point you're
making here.
I was not aware the report itself had an independent
license. Why is there a
discrepancy between the report's copyright notice and that of the website?
Because one applies to the report, the other to the website.
Are classified attachments also under the same
license?
The statement in the report (I'm looking at the executive summary) is:
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government
Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.
so you're going to need to look at the individual attachments to
determine whether an exclusion is made.
How about interviews recorded by the BBC
etc (ie other content such as videos)?
AIUI, these are not part of the report.
Ideally, everything on the site should be freely
licensed so that in can
be copied to wikisource and commons (videos and media including
pdfs).
On what basis would you compel the BBC and commercial providers to
relinquish their rights?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk