Wolfgang Jeltsch <wolfgang@jeltsch.net> writes:
"I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law, or explicitly claimed in the work for some clearly identifiable portion of the work. No warranty of accuracy or fitness-for-purpose is implied for this work."
Does this mean that you have to adhere to the licenses of cited material?
I don't know. In the absence of information to the contrary, I suppose yes. One cannot assume free rights over other people's works. However, if you have legal certainty that you do not need to adhere to a licence in certain situations, that is up to you.
What if you have just a short citation. In Germany, for example, you have "the right to cite" so that you don't have to accept any licenses for small portions of copyrighted work. (I suppose that this is similar in other countries.)
Even if you have the right to cite small portions of copyrighted works, I expect the law might require some form of attribution for those quotations? I don't know. But these are the kind of conditions that cannot be waived by a general grant of unconditional usage. However, my suggested text is meant to imply that if you add a quotation to the wiki, you are the one who is responsible to attribute it correctly, and to identify if it has a more restrictive license, or alternatively that the quotation is sufficiently small that no attribution/license is required. The idea is that the /reader/ can be as free as possible to do what they like with the text, because anything non-free will be clearly identified for them. Thus the burden of identifying non-free material falls on the /author/.
Longer parts of other work should better not included but linked to, shouldn't it?
Indeed. Regards, Malcolm