Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2005/January

Use of copyrighted material?
I've just begun work on Linux Professional Institute certification. You can, if you like, see my meager beginnings at User:Minderaser. What I'd like to do is use the exam objectives at http://www.lpi.org/en/obj_101.html as the basis for the layout of the book, as well as actually print that material in the intro and possibly at the beginning of each "chapter" (btw, are these what are considered modules?). The material is copyright LPI and I have gained permission from them to "reprint" it in this book (see User talk:Minderaser). However, this still leaves a number of questions (at least to me :)
 * Since it is under their copyright, should I mark it as an Invariant Section as per the GNU Free Documentation License?
 * Would the material even qualify as an Invariant Section?
 * As the test objectives evolve and change, will one then be able to edit this section to reflect these changes?

I suspect that I am opening a real can of worms with this issue, with many more questions to follow. Or perhaps I'll get lucky and there is a very simple and easy solution to this problem. :) Minderaser 01:20, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, if we cannot have the text under the GNU FDL or very conservative fair use, then we cannot use it here. Invariant sections are evil and are not allowed on any Wikimedia project. Note our policy page on this: Copyrights. --mav 09:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm still not clear on how to handle LPI's copyrighted material... I'll just state that the particular section in question is LPI and is being used with their permission, perhaps with a link to their letter of permission. Minderaser 15:58, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you can't do that either since "all contributions to Wikibooks are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License" (you know that annoying thing you agree to each time you save a page). Just provide links. --mav


 * Hi mav! Yea, that annoying thing that I agree to each time I save a page -- it also states "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" Well, I DO have permission. So the problem is? Have you looked at how I have it set up now? LPIC1 Exam 101:Detailed Objectives Let me know if you think that's acceptable. Minderaser 14:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * This is an important class of permissions; I have similar vague permissions from many people who I'm sure intend that their work be used as widely as possible. The real question here is what boilerplate request-letters to provide contributors to ensure we find out (1) whether they mind their content being edited, (2) whether they want attribution, or want no connection at all with such edited content, (3) whether any changes (on their end) to slowly-changing content can be propagated to WM projects...  Sj 21:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Using preexisting syllabi
Is there a copyright problem if one uses preexisting syllabus outlines in making new texts? Dysprosia 05:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I have had similar questions. A local non-profit group of business advisors (all of whom were retired lawyers) did not know anything about copyright law and thought it would be difficult to get a pro-bono opinion from anyone else. However that is exactly what I think we need, someone who can give us good, free legal advice on exactly where the lines fall as far as plagiarism and originality goes. --Karl Wick

I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, the degree of originality would make a difference. If the order of subjects is forced, or nearly forced, it's not copyrightable.

E.g, for history, putting the chapters in chronological order is the obvious strategy, and has been standard for centuries. Copyrighting that would be like copyrighting the principle of alphabetical ordering.

In the sciences, the order of material may be completely forced. It is simply impossible to cover ODE's before covering differentiation.

Copying a syllabus exactly could be a problem, but no one should be copying word for word anyway. The broad outline of our syllabuses are bound to repeat some textbook or other (given the constraints, every sensible sequence of subjects has probably already been used), but so long as all we do is accidentally duplicate the broad outline, not copy the details, we shouldn't have copyright trouble. Carandol 07:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

GPL and FDL incompatibility
I don't think this has been brought up before but someone in the #gnustep channel on freenode has pointed out to me that the GNU FDL isn't compatible with the GNU GPL. This means that any example code included in our programming textbooks cant be used in GPL programs (Or possibly any programs. I'm not aware of a compatible license).

Personally I'm not willing to contribute lots of information to textbooks on programming if the information can't be used for anything useful. What, if anything, should we do about this? - Tobin Richard 13:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * We can have a sitewide thing, or a personal thing, to release code here under the GPL, or have a more permissive license such as BSD... I don't know whether the GFDL covers code.
 * And I think you should contribute information on programming (though whether you contribute code is up to you.) Dysprosia 08:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think book sample code should be public domain. Thus, just say "this code is public domain" with the other liability disclaimers. MShonle 08:53, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about the other way. I would like to publish here courses which are derivatives from HOWTOs of the Linux Documentation Project. See Networking_(LPIC202). AFAIK, most of the HOWTOs are under the GPL. What should I do ? Yann 21:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is actually all backwards; code released under the GFDL can be incoporated into GPL'd code (well, not quite, it is possible to include it in invariant sections, but we dont have them, so anything released under the GFDL in wikimedia can be used under the GPL). The problem is that GPL'd code can not (as far as i know) be released under the GFDL (since the GFDL is more restrictive than the GPL). Eventually however the GFDL will become compatible with CC-BY-SA, and the GPL (as in lessig, jimbo, and rms are currently negoiating), and we will all be able to live hapily ever after. The bellman 12:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the wikibook Compiler Construction and intend to provide actual code (probably many 1000's of lines) as examples and for readers to play with. Can I specifically release this code under the GPL via suitable copyright notices, and if so, is there any recommended way of doing so? Murray Langton 06:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a few ways you could do this. One would be to put a notice on your user page stating that any code you submit is licensed under the GPL in addition to the GFDL.  This would cover your contributions, but if another user were to add code later on, it wouldn't cover theirs. You could also create a licences section of Compiler Construction stating that all the code in the book is GPL, but there might be a problem if another user adds code to the book without reading that page first and thus not knowing their code is under two licenses. Maybe a footer at the bottom of each page with the dual code license would be suitable. Gentgeen 20:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Approach to Mathematics Wikibooks
It seems that every good paper mathematics textbook starts with a quick review of some basic concepts from other fields of mathematics. This is necessary because if the student doesn't understand these basics, they can't understand what we're talking about. The approach I've seen in the Mathematics Wikibooks has been to use this approach, making for duplicated articles. Often, there is a large gap in quality - the entry for Algebra/Functions is easier to understand than Calculus/Functions, so we would be better off linking to that than duplicating the section.

Should we stop this trend by replacing review sections by a link to a summary section contained in the relevant wikibook, or should we just try to keep the two pages in sync? Could we just have a list of topics that one should understand before attempting to read a book, together with links to wikibooks on those topics? --SpaceMoose 09:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * My only hesitation with making a bunch of links for the readers to visit is that the reader might get a feeling that "there's no end in sight." For example, what starts as three links to short, high-quality articles might become half a dozen links to articles that have grown tremendously. I think it would be too much of a burden for the reader to have to follow so many links. I favor the "set" model, where there is a main page that links to all of the chapters (or sections) and so the linking only goes one level deep. Losing the "voice" of the book could also make for a poorer reading experience... for example, avoiding repetition of definitions would still be labor intensive.


 * However, a prerequisite section with links to short books might be called for. Any solution sounds like a lot of work to get it done right. I think for this particular case there could be a review section in the calculus book that links to the appropriate algebra topics, and what remains in the calculus version that's helpful could be merged in. But as for the typical "here is set theory" section of most math books, perhaps it will need to just be duplicated again and again, because not every book is going to use the same notation. MShonle 18:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * A Proposal


 * Yes, it definitely is discouraging to keep going deeper into links which refer to more and more prerequisites. This is the main reason that Wikipedia is not suitable for classroom or independent learning, even when it is a comprehensive treatment of the subject.  And it would also be (unnecessarily) discouraging to be referred to an entire book (say on set theory, with all of its nasty details and examples) when we need only a few of the elementary concepts.


 * Each book should start with a list of prerequisites (links to entire books that should be completely understood before the topic can be approached) and preliminaries (short summaries of topics from other books that will be needed). Perhaps there should also be suggested prerequisites - analysis is much easier to understand after a calculus course, but you don't really need to know calculus before you learn analysis.


 * Perhaps we could add this content into the previous book rather than the current book. Every book could end with a section of summaries (Algebra would have a section "What you need to know about functions before learning calculus or analysis", Set theory would have a section "Basic set theory terms and notation for use in many other courses").  In some cases, the relevant summary would actually just be a chapter in another book.  And if one book is a prerequisite for another book, we could have a box at the end of the book entitled "Where can I go from here?" that tells you what books you will be able to understand after absorbing all of the material in the book.


 * The benefit of this approach is mainly that it would hopefully prevent further duplication. Whenever you want to add preliminaries to a new book, you would go the relevant book to add a summary and you would see whether or not there already is a summary that will suffice.


 * Maintaining a consistent voice might be a little bit of a problem, but we could at least avoid duplicating definitions - just keep the summary page in the previous book reasonably consistent with the current book. And if you want to use a notation different from someone else's, just add a summary page to the set theory book that summarizes basic set theory using your notation (which you would have to write anyway) to the Set Theory book list of summaries.  That way at least books that used the same notation could avoid duplicating this content.


 * Does this sound reasonable? Or is it too much work?--SpaceMoose 02:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable, but it is still a tricky problem. For example, the Computer science:Algorithms book has a section on big-O notation that could also be in the data-structures book. (More over, at the beginning of the book, we list required understanding of data-structures.) The discussion of big-O is necessary to cover the master theorem, and it's necessary for the data-structures book too. However, I like the idea that someone could print out a copy of their book to study it in the spare time, so having all they need in one place is a plus. But obviously these projects could gain with some coordination and co-authoring.


 * But right now I think redundancy isn't the biggest priority. I'm more concerned getting content into both the algorithms and data structures book.


 * I like your idea of "sugested further reading" section, because often knowing which book to read next is just as important as understanding the book you just read. MShonle 04:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am new, but as a college student, I am axious to come here to find specific information about topics that were not covered well in the books that my courses use. Specificilly it would be nice if I could choose a topic, say "Point Group Theory," indicate my level of background (PDE's) and have Wikibooks compile a list of dependencies that I would need to "install/learn", before getting to "Point Group Theory," and display them as one continious article.  This would specilize the content to the user's needs and allow for the granulating abilites of Wiki to be used more effectively.--Agenor 04:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The little boxes, what do they mean?
I've seen red/yellow(purple)/green boxes by articles. It would be great if by clicking on a box, I could be told what the box meant.
 * The box represents the progress of the book. A [[Image:100%.png]] box means that a book is complete and comprehensive, while a [[Image:25%.png]] means that the book is either just starting or is stuggling. The empty box [[File:00%.svg]] on a chapter is a good way to say "this chapter hasn't been written yet". As for mouse-clicks, that's not so important. The main page has a table showing what these symbols mean. MShonle 05:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the ALT attribute for those images can be set to some descriptive text, since most browsers display the ALT attribute's text when you hover the mouse over an image. Just an idea.  &mdash; franl (talk) 20:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I implemented new versions of the boxes as simple templates of the form   (giving ) or    (giving }. When you now hover over the pictures, they show what the mean. The version including the date also shows, when this assesment was last made. Please read throuth Help:Development stages first and then review books on the bookshelves by yourself! --Andreas Ipp 07:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect Template Delays?
I'm using a rather tricky mechanism so that I can get the Computer Science:Data Structures book to have two views: a view where each chapter is its own web-page, and a view where the entire book is a single web-page (for printing). To do this, I use the Template: area, where each template provides a #REDIRECT to the content page I want. Thus, I have some simple pages that just use the template by naming the page it wants: the single-chapter view pages include only the one template name, while the all-chapter page includes all template names. (You might want to visit the book to see what this looks like.)

The problem I'm having is that when I edit the content pages, the pages that use the templates (and the templates themselves are just redirects to non-template pages) are out of date. It seems only by editing the page to remove the use of the template, and then reverting it back can the page get updated.

So: Is this a bug and/or is there a work around for me to get something working? Thanks. --MShonle 04:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW, it seems other people (i.e. other browsers) can see the changes immediately. Perhaps it's a cache issue? MShonle 20:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reversed Numbers onStatistics Page
Over at Wikibooks' Statistics page it says, "There have been a total of 25043 page views, and 100243 page edits since the wiki was setup. That comes to 5.54 average edits per page, and 0.25 views per edit." Wikipedia's statistics doesn't have this very odd ratio. -- Everlong 14:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Move to talk
I suggest to move all the talk from this page to the corresponding "talk" page. This page could contain a short and informative FAQ (with content from "Summarized discussions") and a prominent link to the corresponding talk page. I'd do it by myself, but since I'm not around yet here for a long time, I don't want to step on anybody's toes... --Andreas Ipp 09:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the FAQ should be on separate page, and those issues addressed in the FAQ can then be archived on a talk page (or an archived talk page). Issues that are moot could similarly be archived. The staff lounge page could link to the FAQ at the very top. However, I like open nature of the lounge as it is now... too much indirection will mean a drop in participation. MShonle 23:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Responsible for print css
Who is responsible for the print CSS? I'd like to add a box to my project, that does not show up on print, just on screen. I looked at the Wikibooks commonPrint.css but didn't find any generic class ".noPrint" or something like this. I could just use a class  to mimic this behavior, but it is not a clean solution, as top might in the future also have other stylistic properties that I don't want to inherit. Any idea, who could change the CSS file mentioned above? It would be a simple one line addition to the CSS file. (adding it to my private CSS file would not be of much help, since I want to use this property in a book for everybody). --Andreas Ipp 09:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HTML Now gone Wacko
Something has changed (in the last day or so) all the HTML coding, changing tags like &lt;big&gt; to HUGE. What gives. Is the software running amock? - marsh 05:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks should have subpages on main namespace
I think we need the software to know about the book structure. Have you read Wikibooks should use subpages? ManuelGR 19:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Now we can use subpages as in Wikijunior Big Cats/Lion. ManuelGR 18:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism
Take a look at the edits made by User:152.163.100.138. These edits were made to the chapter Algebra/Function Graphing. These are the only edits made by this User under this number. It looks like nonsense to me. Is this vandalism? Should this User:152.163.100.138 be suspended or banned? I understand that sometimes legitimate Users have the same numbers as vandal Users, so I don't know the perfect solution to this problem. I reverted the edits made by this User. H Padleckas 18:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)