I am currently writing an article for the British Go Journal and I am seeking permission to reproduce diagrams from two pages from Sensei's Library.
The pages are the Two Stone Edge- and Two Stone Corner Squeeze.
It would not be practical to include a full copy of the open content licence in the printed journal.
I have not been able to find an author for these pages to ask for permission to reproduce or alter some diagrams included there, so I thought it would be worth trying here.
Another alternative would be for me to include a link in the article to the SL Copyright page, but I am not confident that this meets the requirements of the licence.
I am also unclear as to whether using the content in a for-sale printed magazine would constitute "charging a fee for the content" - which is not allowed by the licence.
Any input would be appreciated.
I can also be contacted via my email address at hotmail.com, which is thechroliver
As SL librarian and editor and - now - UK resident:
Providing the names of the pages used, and referring to the SL copyright page and/or providing a direct link to the Open Content License ( http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml) should be sufficient.
BGJ being for sale is no issue: "You may at your option charge a fee for the media and/or handling involved in creating a unique copy of the OC for use offline".
Provisions of the OCL that you have to use unaltered content are in my opinion of somewhat limited use in case of a wiki.
Please go ahead.
Thanks very much for the quick reply!
I did wonder about altering the content - especially with the requirement to essentially include a "change log"...
It would be more convenient for me to alter (or "crop") the diagrams, but I will copy them "verbatim" if that is better.
For the page "Two Stone Edge Squeeze", I was the one who added the original diagrams, and this can be confirmed by going through the page history and checking who made what edits. I edit using "unkx80" as my moniker.
I am not a lawyer, but it is of my belief that individual Go positions by themselves aren't really copyrightable, otherwise it is not possible to have meaningful discussions regarding these positions.
A final remark: The use of the OpenContent License is due to historical reasons, and the license is now stuck on Sensei's Library. At that time, the much better licenses from Creative Commons didn't exist.
Yee Fan a.k.a. unkx80
P.S. I am also a librarian on Sensei's Library, albeit an inactive one.