19

You can use all the text, and most of the images, under some conditions, and those conditions include proper attribution. Wikipedias text is under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license (CC BY-SA 3.0). If you abide by those conditions - that is, credit the writers, and publish the text (or whatever adaptations you've made to the text) ...


13

You are not supposed to trust it - Wikipedia itself tells you that it is not a reliable source. Instead, you are supposed to trust the sources it cites in the articles. This will mostly be secondary sources, e.g. newspaper or magazine articles, books or studies about a topic, provided that these meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. The ...


6

Commercial activities which infringe copyright don't become non-infringing simply by becoming non-commercial; that is, the commercial nature of your activity has very little bearing on its infringing nature. You are also distributing this word list with your game, so please disabuse yourself of the idea that you are not republishing the material. That said,...


5

All content on Wiktionary is under CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported, according to a link in the footer of each page. According to Creative Commons: Your contributions to adaptations of BY-SA 3.0 materials may only be licensed under: BY-SA 3.0, or a later version of the BY-SA license. [...] So, if you make an "adaptation" of the module, you can publish it ...


5

You've got a couple issues. First off, is the way you assert your copyright. Particularly this: (emphasis mine) Copyright (c) 2016 my-name (ɔ) Copyleft The issue is that the term "copyleft" is not a legally defined term. Even this Wikipedia article claims that the addition of this text has no legal significance whatsoever. Second, I'm not entirely ...


4

Wikipedia has an entire article on this subject, including several studies, most famously Giles, J. (2005). "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head: Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries" published in Nature. Generally, Wikipedia seems of roughly equal reliability as conventional encyclopedias.


4

When merely copying small snippets of code, it may be worth considering whether the use could be covered by a copyright exception, such as fair use in the US. Because if some exception applies you won't have to consider the licensing. You would still have to properly attribute the snippet, of course. Note also that while pseudocode is copyrightable, the ...


4

IANAL/IANYL, but provided you're happy with making your content available under GPLv3, you should be fine. You're planning on implementing the Wikipedia-provided pseudocode in other languages, which means you're creating a derivative work (or, as CC refers to it, Adapted Material). Content in Wikipedia may be reused under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later. The next ...


4

You hold the copyright to your works, and can issue licenses. A license can either be exclusive or non-exclusive, but for each sub-right of copyright you cannot grant an exclusive and non-exclusive license at the same time. Multiple non-exclusive licenses can co-exist. You have granted licenses under the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. These ...


3

If not stated differently, websites contents (this including photos) must be considered copyrighted by the owner/maintainer of the website and you can't use them straight away. It is always a good (and nice) thing to ask the owner/maintainer for licence term and/or permission to share that photo on Wikipedia. Google allows to filter the results based on ...


3

In general it is certainly possible, but "viral" licenses, such as the SA ("share-alike") CC licenses, require derived works to be provided under the same license, so the derived work cannot be more restrictive (or less restrictive, for that matter). With datasets it might be a little more complicated in that creating a dataset from a ...


3

The important point to focus on is that, with certain exceptions, the licence on a piece of software doesn't affect the outputs of that software. Instead, the outputs are generally a derivative work of the inputs, so the licence on the outputs (if any) will be governed by what rights and obligations the program's user has with regard to making derivative ...


2

Nothing indicates that the Lua code would have a special license, you therefore have to assume that Wikitionary's default CC-BY-SA 3.0 applies. As your port is most likely an adaptation of that Lua code, you are bound by the share-alike clause. If you publish your port you can only do so under the same CC license, or a compatible license. This effectively ...


2

The Creative Commons wiki best practices page suggests that a good attribution includes the title, author, source and license of the material. If there is no format specified you can't miss if you follow those basic rules. In your case the title is: "A soiled Warthog relaxing during a hot day at San Diego Zoo, California, USA" The author: https://commons....


1

Most photos on Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons) are either created for that purpose, and thus licensed appropriately, or are found from Flickr, which allows and encourages users to add Creative Commons licenses to their photos.


1

As Brandin said: if you copy the code verbatim, or copy and modify it then you have to follow the license. In this case you are advised to check the original sources since they may be licensed differently. If you use Wikipedia to understand the method, then create your own code based on that knowledge then it is not restricted by the license of Wikipedia.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible