 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Beta 23 benchmarked on a wide variety of chips
Date: 14 Jan 2009 17:51:19
Message: <496e6c67@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> and if you check you will find the wikipedia
> article simply includes some paragraphs from the papers.
Hmm is that legal? What are the usual terms of use for academic papers?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-Jan-09 23:51, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> and if you check you will find the wikipedia
>> article simply includes some paragraphs from the papers.
>
> Hmm is that legal? What are the usual terms of use for academic papers?
Usually the copyright is owned by the publisher of the journal the paper
is published in. It used to be so that we were not even allowed to
include text or illustrations from our own work in another context
without explicit permission of the publisher. I think we are still not
allowed to publish pdf versions of our papers on our own website.
One of the reasons why things are a bit changing is that it used to be
so that the publisher did a final correction, made nice illustrations
and did the final layout. Nowadays almost all they do is collect the
word or TeX file and the bitmap and vector illustrations and create the
physical issue. All other work is done by the authors and the editorial
board, which is a group of volunteers from the field. Doing 2% of the
work and getting 100% of the benefit does not seem fair to everyone.
Hence all sort of initiatives to come to a paperless journal. That in
itself is influencing the paper business.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Beta 23 benchmarked on a wide variety of chips
Date: 14 Jan 2009 18:44:37
Message: <496e78e5$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> One of the reasons why things are a bit changing is that it used to be
> so that the publisher did a final correction, made nice illustrations
> and did the final layout.
Well, that and the peer review. But the peer review was usually done by
unpaid peers, so it comes to close to the same thing. The journal was really
providing reputation more than anything. Reputation is something that nobody
can monopolise, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: Beta 23 benchmarked on a wide variety of chips
Date: 15 Jan 2009 02:36:16
Message: <496ee770$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> and if you check you will find the wikipedia
>> article simply includes some paragraphs from the papers.
>
> Hmm is that legal? What are the usual terms of use for academic papers?
As the state the source, it is just legal quoting. It is bad style though.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Beta 23 benchmarked on a wide variety of chips
Date: 15 Jan 2009 08:51:01
Message: <496f3f44@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>>> and if you check you will find the wikipedia
>>> article simply includes some paragraphs from the papers.
>>
>> Hmm is that legal? What are the usual terms of use for academic papers?
>
> As the state the source, it is just legal quoting. It is bad style though.
Don't they need permission to relicense the academic paper text as GFDL?
Maybe not if it's clear it's a literal quote (ie. with quote marks).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-Jan-09 0:44, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> One of the reasons why things are a bit changing is that it used to be
>> so that the publisher did a final correction, made nice illustrations
>> and did the final layout.
>
> Well, that and the peer review. But the peer review was usually done by
> unpaid peers,
Still is. I actually have a paper here that I have to review. It always
takes a lot of time to do well. Even if I spend two full days rereading
and checking the literature, I still get paid the same as the guy who
simply writes: "I don't like it" (That actually seem to have happened at
least once).
> so it comes to close to the same thing. The journal was
> really providing reputation more than anything. Reputation is something
> that nobody can monopolise, tho.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Beta 23 benchmarked on a wide variety of chips
Date: 16 Jan 2009 04:53:10
Message: <49705906$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmail com> schreef in bericht
news:496e6c67@news.povray.org...
> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> and if you check you will find the wikipedia
>> article simply includes some paragraphs from the papers.
>
> Hmm is that legal? What are the usual terms of use for academic papers?
In scientific work you can refer to work in other papers, as long as you
give fully all relevant reference, i.e. author(s), year of publication, full
title, full reference of journal/book, number of pages; and ususally
specific page if text is cited literally (which, in general, is not
encouraged).
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Beta 23 benchmarked on a wide variety of chips
Date: 16 Jan 2009 14:33:48
Message: <4970e11c@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> In scientific work you can refer to work in other papers, as long as you
> give fully all relevant reference, i.e. author(s), year of publication,
> full title, full reference of journal/book, number of pages; and ususally
> specific page if text is cited literally (which, in general, is not
> encouraged).
Well, I know "referring to work" is completely legal given proper citation
of sources. In this case, Thorsten said the Wikipedia article literally
included some paragraphs from the original paper.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
