Talk:KDAV#Name

I noticed that the tone of this article seemed to be copy vio. I looked at the website for this article and it is indeed just about word for word. I was about to revert back to a non-copy vio state when I read on the website, [http://www.kdav.org/kdav/history.html "This Technical / Historical narrative has been furnished in partnership with Wikipedia as we jointly update its contents, correct grammatical errors, and update the facts on an annual basis. We thank Wiki for their partnership in this venture."] My question: Would this be legit? Planetary ChaosTalk 06:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

: It could be "legit", although in that case that kdav.org website is violating copyright by not posting a notice that the content there is dual-licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL, and by not linking back to the article for proper attribution. BTW, it looks like someone needs to clean up behind this "Kdavwebmaster". Anomie⚔ 12:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

::It also gives the impression of article ownership. I have also reported the username as a violation of WP:UN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Who had the content first? If it's us, they are violating copyright by not having the notice, as Anomie says. But if it's them, we have copyright troubles in the other direction because it sounds like a "just for Wikipedia" copyright release. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

::::Actually, they have the potential copyright problem since they are using text from other editors (not their own). But we don't have a problem, since their editors are releasing their edits when they edit here. It would be good to have a statement on the website or sent to OTRS recognizing that fact, though. And, of course, the "partnership" stuff is nonsense, since it implies that they have a relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::For future reference, you can throw questions like this up at the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions noticeboard, which is where us editors interested in copyright issues hang out. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't sure where to go with this issue as this had me scratching my head. Like mentioned above, what came first, the chicken or the egg? In my reasoning, the website would have had the, "about" section but, no proof either way. Planetary ChaosTalk 11:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)