Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-02-25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Redirected. MER-C 12:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of those that is so hyper-technical it is hard to say whether the content is creative or not. That said, the author seems to be making a GF effort to release on a free license though they've not done so in the right place. Furthermore, this source appears on NIH.GOV so may be PDGOV. Investigating... CrowCaw 22:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general rule for PUBMED is that the abstracts are copyrighted, all rights reserved. That particular article comes from PLOS One, so it's OK provided that it's attributed. MER-C 12:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compatibly licensed content. MER-C 12:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compatibly licensed content. MER-C 12:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]