The SCP-RU 2017 License Crisis was an international diplomacy event that led to the brief excommunication of the Russian branch of the SCP Wiki (-RU) from and by the English branch (-EN). It was based around debate regarding the site’s Creative Commons By-Attribution, Share-Alike 3.0 license (CC BY-SA 3.0).

On March 19th, 2017, longtime administrator of the Russian branch, Gene R, posted on the O5command forums seeking help with a YouTuber who was not following the CC license.^[1]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-2171743/russian-youtube-audio-versions, archive As a result, -EN discovered that the Russian Wiki used a different version of the CC license than the English one for its native content. This began a series of escalating events culminating with the English Wiki demanding that the Russian Branch remove all license-offending content or else be banished from official recognition. Because having an incorrectly licensed SCP branch within the official fold was viewed as a legal and existential threat, -EN used pressure tactics, revoking -RU’s recognition from -EN’s main page, as well as petitioning other international branches to follow their lead in doing so.^[2]http://o5command-int.wikidot.com/forum/t-2309480/removal-of-the-russian-branch-from-the-official-branches, archive An ultimatum was issued on the evening of 29 April, 2017, approximately one month and ten days after the initial posting. The Russian Wiki eventually changed all content to be CC BY-SA 3.0 compliant in late August, and was restored as an officially-recognized branch.

Presumably at its inception on June 27th 2010,^[3]ttps://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/a-brief-history-of-scp-ru, archive and certainly shortly thereafter,^[4]https://web.archive.org/web/20110618065631/http://scp-ru.wikidot.com/ the Russian branch of the SCP Wiki utilized a zero-day variation of -EN’s CC license. Whereas -EN explicitly abided by CC-BY-SA 3.0, -RU labeled its wiki and works as CC-BY-SA-NC 3.0, similar except for the addition of a “NC”, or a “non-commercial” stipulation.

The -RU’s non-commercial version nominally gave authors distribution rights over their works. It prohibited would-be merchants from capitalizing monetarily on products derived from -RU native articles, as well as translations of -EN articles; unless the -RU authors gave permission. (-RU Admins maintained from the outset that untranslated -EN articles were subject to CC-BY-SA 3.0, and could be monetized in the form of products and other derivatives per the commercial license.^[5]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-2171743/russian-youtube-audio-versions#post-2770689)

These two licenses are marked as incompatible on the CC webpage.^[6]https://raw.githubusercontent.com/creativecommons/faq/master/CC_License_Compatibility_Chart.png, archive Thus, given that the -RU branch was a derivative of -EN, the two licenses were incompatible by law.

In the words of the -EN licensing team:

“The emphasis is on the ShareAlike provisions, which specify in section 4.b that adaptations must be distributed under the same license as the original with the same elements of the original license.”^[7]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-2171743/russian-youtube-audio-versions#post-2796641

The license discrepancy arose due to a lack of established licensing guidelines at the time of -RU’s creation (2010), a lack of understanding on the part of the early -EN founders concerning what the CC BY-SA 3.0 license entailed, and also because the license applied to wikis at the time of the SCP Wiki’s creation was CC BY-SA 3.0 by default. This discrepancy persisted for over 7 years.

History

2015

License discrepancies had existed between SCP Wiki branches prior to this incident. Initially, the Chinese branch and The Wanderer’s Library had errant CC licenses.^[8]https://archive.ph/s7ONk#selection-6457.0-6467.14^[9]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-2171743/russian-youtube-audio-versions#post-2805558) These, including -RU’s license, were recognized and addressed as early as 2015, including a direct notice of license violation and a request to correct it by the -EN licensing team.^[10]http://05command.wikidot.com/archived:reports-3, archive The Chinese branch changed their license upon the notice, whereas the Russian branch did not. -RU representatives felt as though there were elements of the SCP Foundation universe that antedated -EN’s superimposition of CC BY-SA 3.0 to the material. Additionally, -RU representatives thought that basic concepts of SCP were CC BY-SA 3.0 (commercial), but that specific -EN articles that were translated into Russian for the -RU branch, and -RU original articles, were protected under the Russian CC BY-SA-NC 3.0 license.

GeneR, a -RU Admin and the primary contact with ambassadors from -EN during this initial contact and the crisis that would follow, responded to the 2015 request to change the license:

Hello, I want to talk with you about the licensing for your site. I notice that you have your stuff licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC-BY-NC-SA) agreement. Unfortunately, this agreement is not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) agreement that the SCP Foundation uses. Because most of your content is derived from us (Including any original work that uses the SCP Foundation, other groups of interest, etc. Stuff that doesn’t reference SCP Foundation lore is totally fine), you need to change your licensing to be compatible with ours by changing it to CC-BY-SA. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Best, Gaffney^[11]https://archive.ph/s7ONk#selection-6491.0-6523.8

And I have to disagree with you on some parts, although I have yet to consult a lawyer on both of these. According to the CC legal code, a translation is an Adaptation. According to part 4.b, derived works can be published via > (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License BY-NC-SA does contain the same elements (sharing and adapting) as BY-SA. The “Stuff that doesn’t reference SCP Foundation lore” part is trickier. No one holds the copyright to the Foundation lore, and, according to Foundation history, a lot of articles were copied to the scp-wiki from EditThis not by their authors and licensed by BY-SA. If we’re to dig deeper, SCP-173 was initially published on an imageboard, probably without any licensing at all. The only reasonable way out of this situation would be declaring both of our sites Collections (as per CC license terminology). In that case, > This Section 4(b) applies to the Adaptation as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Adaptation itself to be made subject to the terms of the Applicable License which means that original works may be published under a different license. Ugh. We need a lawyer. CC license is all well, but local and international laws should override it whenever there is a conflict between the license and the law. And I do not fully understand how it all comes together. — Gene R^[12]https://archive.ph/s7ONk#selection-6547.0-6575.217

There was no further communication or resolution to the matter at that time.

2017

GeneR revived the disagreement incidentally when he asked -EN’s licensing team to assist with a Russian community member who was, in -RU’s estimation, breaking both licenses’ terms. At first, the apparent insult to the licenses was responded to by -EN staff. However, after some deliberation, -EN licensing representative Doctor Cimmerian replied:

“I don’t think we can help much with Russian license enforcement as long as their wiki is in violation of our own site license (specifically the inclusion of the non-commercial clause, which is the focus of this help request). Until such a time as their site comes into compliance with our license, there’s not a lot of cooperation we can accomplish… I apologize but this is something that’s going to have to be resolved long term… this means, regardless of how it is currently labeled, the Non-Commercial element is not valid. All works on the Russian Wiki are, in fact, under the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license. The site needs to be labeled as such. To be clear: this is an official request by the licensing team to the Russian wiki administration on the issue of the Russian SCP Wiki’s non-compliant license. To bring the Russian Wiki into compliance with the share alike provisions of our own content license, the Non-Commercial aspect must be removed.”^[13]https://archive.is/EZU1O#selection-1117.0-1149.304

-RU noted that while translations may be subject to the -EN license, rudimentary elements of the SCP universe and format came into existence and were established prior to the transition to Wikidot from EditThis, and even from /x/ to EditThis. They also noted that all of SCP was subject to the copyright laws established for internet forums, since SCP-173 was initially posted to the /x/ board of 4chan, and from an intellectual property perspective was technically stolen.

-EN responded:

“After analysis of the situation we have determined that continuing to link to SCP-RU will expose our staff to potential criminal prosecution… Existing evidence of our past licensing work could potentially be used as evidence of fraud, perjury or libel if we are linking to communities using an incompatible license while asking other sites like Redbubble to enforce the license on their users… inaction could destroy us all.”^[14]https://archive.is/EZU1O#selection-1379.0-1409.259

-EN retorted that the only element of the SCP Foundation that wasn’t unarguably beholden to the Wiki’s CC BY-SA 3.0 license was the format itself.

“The acronym SCP didn’t stand for anything and there was no such thing as “The Foundation” or any kind of shared universe until after the move to WikiDot. There was no consistency or concept of the wider universe before the move to Wikidot If Sites were referenced, they were only words and had none of the ideas attached to them. Nearly everything that comes to mind, apart from the standard SCP article formatting, when you think of “The SCP Foundation” was developed by the community on wikidot.”^[15]https://archive.is/EZU1O#selection-1405.0-1409.259

-EN threatened to disavow the -RU branch of the SCP Foundation Wiki, removing mention and links to the site altogether, if the license was not made compatible. -EN also refused to assist -RU in any licensing matters or conflicts until the correction was made. In reply, -RU sought legal advice from a third party. -EN gave -RU until the end of May to remedy the situation, citing years of attempted diplomacy on this point, ending the ultimatum with “do what thou wilt.”

On the last day of May, GeneR responded to -EN’s ultimatum, beginning a very long post with “Good news.” -RU representatives claimed that a third party legal consultant revealed that:^[16]https://archive.is/EZU1O#selection-2131.0-2177.67

• Translators have a copyright to their works according to Berne convention
• thematically similar works are independent copyright objects that can be used by agreement with their authors
• lack of proscription is not to be considered agreement (meaning that while an “implied license” is not recognized, at least in Russian law, the lack of clear copyright and IP status for the original SCP-173 could not be handled in any way that -RU might like to)
• -RU only needs to change the license in response to specific authors’ requests

At this time, -RU decided to change the site’s license to CC BY-SA 3.0 as a “sign of good will”, but stated that -RU original works will stay in the CC BY-SA-NC 3.0 license, and future works will be given the option to choose either license as the author wishes.

Multiple members of the -EN team replied and said that this compromise was insufficient, and that only a total and complete conversion to the license would suffice. However, -EN extended the deadline for -RU to June 4th, 2017. Archived records of the -RU Main Page show that the license was changed to CC BY-SA 3.0 from the -NC variant sometime on June 1st, or June 2nd, 2017.^[17]https://web.archive.org/web/20170601024912/http://scpfoundation.ru/^[18]https://web.archive.org/web/20170602125653/http://scpfoundation.ru/

On June 4th, representatives of -EN thanked -RU for changing the license to be compatible. This was premature however, as -EN team members discovered that -RU had included these instructions to their users in their site FAQ:

“9.2. Russian-language website content (ie articles written by Russian authors, such as the SCP-1007-RU – Nietzsche virus , published prior to 6.3.2017 by default licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY etc. -NC-SA). this license does not imply a commercial use, but you can create on the basis of the material products which will not apply to a commercial basis (with an indication of the source, as suggested in this guide ). Authors who have published their articles to 03.06 .2017 inclusive, may alter It is licensed for its contribution to the commercial license of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License , notifying in this forum thread.”

June 4th passed without a complete correction, and so -EN removed mentions and links to the -RU from their website.^[19]https://web.archive.org/web/20170603205812/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/^[20]https://web.archive.org/web/20170605151704/https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ -EN requested other international branches do the same, and -RU was removed from most international branches — including the Chinese, Korean, Spanish, Japanese, and Thai branches — while the link to -RU remained on the main international site’s main hub page.^[21]https://web.archive.org/web/20170715044001/http://scp-wiki-cn.wikidot.com/^[22]https://web.archive.org/web/20170701095148/http://ko.scp-wiki.net/^[23]https://web.archive.org/web/20170720165555/http://lafundacionscp.wikidot.com/^[24]https://web.archive.org/web/20170630101838/http://ja.scp-wiki.net/^[25]https://web.archive.org/web/20170703194134/http://scp-th.wikidot.com/^[26]https://web.archive.org/web/20170716055703/http://scp-int.wikidot.com/ -RU admins were allowed to retain access to the O5 Command Wiki so that they could report when they recanted the incompatible license. -EN stated that they were going to contact WikiDot to inform them of the license violation.^[27]https://archive.is/EZU1O#selection-3267.0-3275.243

It wasn’t until August 27, 2017, nearly three months later, that -RU complied with -EN’s request, changing the license to CC BY-SA 3.0 in all facets of the site, and ending the stand-off.

Russian Wiki

The -RU administrators kept their own userbase abridged during the crisis. Initially, a thread was made where authors were given the opportunity to express whether or not they wanted to have their works remain CC BY-SA-NC 3.0, or be changed to the non-NC version.^[28]https://web.archive.org/web/20170902164032/http://scpfoundation.ru/forum/t-2306378/zaprosy-na-izmenenie-licenzii

A post to the Site Management forum on June 5th, 2017 first discussed the issue at length:

“First of all, we could not afford to drastically change the license for absolutely all content, since our authors published their works under a non-commercial license (hereinafter referred to as NKL) and the change in the conditions for the dissemination of their work unilaterally was dubious from the point of view of not only law, but also morality: our community has been filling and developing the wiki for almost seven years, we did not feel entitled to dispose of it this way. Also, we did not want to lose articles, whose removal could be requested by authors who do not agree with the new terms.”^[29]https://web.archive.org/web/20170905174515/http://scpfoundation.ru/forum/t-2309422/po-povodu-izmenenia-licenzii

A second thread was created on August 27, 2017 that announced the capitulation of the -RU to the -EN’s demands, and the forced change of the license to all works of the site, regardless of origin.^[30]https://web.archive.org/web/20170828205056/http://scpfoundation.ru/forum/t-3475761/po-povodu-izmenenia-licenzii-cast-vtoraa

“It follows from all this that the preservation of the NK license was possible only in the case of a complete removal of all references to the SCP Foundation, all elements of its universe, as well as a change in the design of the site, in other words, a complete rebranding. We couldn’t, and wouldn’t, for obvious reasons.

Thus, we have been provided with convincing evidence that our license is subject to change to a commercial one .

Thus, formally and from the point of view of laws (both international and domestic), the claims of the English wiki are justified. We were initially ready to change the license if the law really requires it. The law really obliges us to do this and the proper license will be delivered no later than 08/31/2017 21:00 Moscow time.

We are not delighted with all this, but we must obey the law. Please understand correctly.”

Aftermath

As a result of the crisis, animosity was created between -RU, -EN, and the remainder of the international branches.^[31]See Quotes. Many -RU members felt the -EN representatives were bullies and villains for their aggression.^[32]See #site37. Tensions were arguably alleviated with the joint-defensive legal effort against Andrei Duksin in the following years.

-RU inferred from the event that -EN suffered from a case of what is colloquially known in Russian culture as “Watchman’s Syndrome”; the idea that when given a small area of purview, responsibility, or authority, an individual or individuals who are prone to over-valuing themselves in that role will hyperbolize a sense of duty through dramatic and excessive shows of force. In such situations, such individuals “start to exert over everyone at a tiniest provocation, and will never let go of it under any circumstances”.^[33]See #site37.

The notable performance and leadership of ProcyonLotor during the diplomatic stand-off likely informed the previous captain’s (Vince Redgrave’s) decision to make him interim captain of the team, which quickly turned into a permanent position.^[34]See #site37.

A critic has noted that-EN representatives were misinformed about the terms of the CC license, particularly that -RU’s violation of any Share-Alike clause threatened the existence of the -EN branch, who could not be blamed for someone else’s misuse of CC material.^[35]https://lackoflepers.medium.com/scp-staffs-misplaced-legal-paranoia-ebfe952d98b1, archive

The -EN licensing team concluded from a study of the legal ramifications surrounding a non-compliant derivative license that “continuing to link to SCP-RU will expose our staff to potential criminal prosecution,” and that “If we don’t do this (again if I understand right), under American law we lose the right to enforce the license at all, ever… We cannot risk losing our right to enforce the license under American or international law… So we would be forced, extremely unwillingly, to cut ties.” The terms of the CC license addresses this scenario:

What happens if I offer my material under a Creative Commons license and someone misuses them? A CC license terminates automatically when its conditions are violated. For example, if a reuser of CC-licensed material does not provide the attribution required when sharing the work, then the user no longer has the right to continue using the material and may be liable for copyright infringement. The license is terminated for the user who violated the license. However, all other users still have a valid license, so long as they are in compliance.^[36]https://creativecommons.org/faq/, archive

This indicates that -EN bears no legal responsibility or risk in the event that -RU misuses the license they are legally bidden to. The liability would solely be -RU’s. A lawsuit at that point could have been brought to -RU from -EN itself, or from merchants and entrepreneurs that had attempted to commercialize material on the -RU that was natively Russian, whether original articles or translations of -EN articles. Despite this, the notion that -EN was under existential threat by -RU’s infraction was a significant diplomatic pressure used in the force applied to the -RU team in their argumentation, and to the other international Wiki branches in their coordination.^[37]See #site37.

When asked in 2021 about the rationale behind the belief that -EN had legal risk exposure because of -RU’s errant actions, WikiDot user pixelatedHarmony (the artist and licensing staff member formerly known as Roget/RJB_R and major participant in the crisis) answered:

“If I recall correctly the guiding logic was something akin to domino theory, allowing the license to stand without challenging it with maximum pressure would open the licence up to other people pushing the boundaries, also anger that -RU continued resisting the will of staff for them to change it and fall in line with the policy preferred by -EN.”^[38]https://curiouscat.live/pixelatedHarmony/post/1226347313, archive

At the time, ProcyonLotor noted in #site37 chat logs that the situation was “honestly half a matter of dignity at this point… both tiring and embarrassing.”^[39]See #site37.

Ongoing Licensing Ambiguities

The history of SCP from an intellectual property standpoint is convoluted and, often times, without clear answers. The nature of the dispute and its implications find company in the long history of complex intellectual property concerns brought on and transformed dramatically by the internet, and because “technological advances tend to exacerbate existing confusions in the law as new policies struggle to keep up with developing technology and practices.”^[40]https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2675133.2675234 While -RU capitulated, ending the crisis, questions that surfaced in the argumentation arguably remain.

For example, in their defense the -EN staff invoked international copyright law, writing, “we are unaware of any arguments otherwise that do not ignore decades of legal precedent.” While technically correct, major instances of Russia acting in an exempt fashion to such laws are numerous, most notably the case with Andrei Duksin’s trademarking of the SCP Logo, which would begin that same year (and the resultant lawsuit, concluded now 3 years later, which Duksin has technically won thus far).

-EN referred to the original author of SCP-173, Moto42, in their defense, noting that he had unequivocally expressed that his work is to be considered CC BY-SA 3.0, as the SCP Wiki had annexed it to be in 2008.^[41]http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-76692/scp-173#post-1879587 This took place in October 2013, which leaves approximately 5 years and 3 months of literary legal ambiguity in which most of what came to be understood as the Foundation and the SCP universe was developed. It also coincides with the era of the Wiki wherein the legal ramifications of the CC license were just being understood by staff, creating the interpretation that they had reached out to Moto42 in order to procure the permission.

The question of whether or not these eventual agreements retroactively cover the time between them and June 22nd, 2007 (the publication date of the original SCP-173 on 4chan^[42]https://archive.ph/hD7IW) is another legal grey area, one that -EN attempted to justify in their argumentation with -RU by reference to something called an “implied license”.^[43]https://archive.ph/EZU1O#selection-1581.2-1585.1 Moto42 had commented the day that the SCP Wiki was created expressing satisfaction with and approval of the derivative content from his original SCP-173.^[44]https://archive.ph/KCCqj This was taken by -EN’s licensing team to be sufficient evidence that the CC BY-SA 3.0 license was “strongly established”,^[45]https://archive.ph/EZU1O#selection-1581.2-1581.66 and the totality of the derivative SCP content (nearly 2000 articles by that point) was covered safely under the CC license. “Implied intent” was a nebulous and undeveloped legal concept in 2008, and it remains so today.^[46]https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/sccj25&div=14&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals Cases which establish precedent in use of the implied license doctrine do not share many features with the situation, and are usually more embedded in pre-existing contractual language, which arguably is a requisite for the application of an implied license to begin with.^[47]https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nclr85&div=27&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals There is little in the available legal literature to suggest that it can be applied strongly to any sure setting. -EN seem to bypass these issues when they write:

“Given Moto42’s awareness and general (albeit distant, but matters surprisingly little) positive support for the wiki as CC-BY-SA was implemented, the implied license is fully controlling under the relevant law.”^[48]https://archive.ph/EZU1O#selection-1831.3-1831.213

Additionally, whether or not Moto42 could be said to have understood the legal implications of a default-selection CC license in 2008 is a matter of contention, in that the SCP staff and its leaders themselves demonstrably did not understand the implications of the CC license at that time and well after.^[49]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-436135/changing-our-license, archive^[50]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-542114/license-change, archive^[51]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-662577/archived-cc-license-details, archive^[52]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-223084/archived-wtf-movie, archive^[53]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-542733/archived-scp-merchandise^[54]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-541741/terms-of-service-and-privacy-policy, archive^[55]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-2171743/russian-youtube-audio-versions, archive

#site37 

Site37 is the IRC chatroom dedicated to the -EN licensing team. Logs of the chatroom offer unique insights into the mentality and give a behind-the-scenes look at the -EN team during the event.

To read extensive chat logs from #site37 during the crisis, please see the #Site37 – Licensing Team (RU Licensing Crisis logs).pdf

Note: The above document includes excerpts of legally public IRC chatrooms, and have been curated and selected from a larger whole for their relevance and role as source material for citations.

Trivia

At one point, -EN was drafting messages to WikiDot Master Admins petitioning them to remove -RU entirely from the platform. This is significant because at that time, a portion of the site had signaled their articles for compliance with the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence, while others maintained loyalty to the -NC variant. -EN understood that essentially removing the -RU from the WikiDot platform would mean the lost collateral of innocent authors and their works (those that signaled for CC BY-SA 3.0), but accepted it at as a necessary casualty of the crisis. At another time, -EN was interested in “a fully-fledged DMCA filed in fifteen minutes from when I’m given cause to do so”.^[56]See #site37.

-RU threatened to sue -EN over the crisis.

Chat logs from previously undisclosed discussions between the -EN staff show that they feared what this would mean for other branch’s capacity to defy the demands of -EN in future political diplomacy.^[57]See #site37.

At one point, -RU representatives pointedly asked for proof from -EN that they had definitively contacted the originator of SCP-173; the evidence of which they could not provide. Within the relative privacy of their IRC chats, the -EN participants admitted to taking this on faith and on the word of DrEverettMann.^[58]See #site37.

Quotes

Below is a collection of slights taken from comments on the Russian SCP Wiki in relation to the crisis, courtesy of Google Translate:

After some time, the administrators of SCP-RU also received letters, the contents of which duplicated the ultimatum described above (about breaking off relations), while the letter also contained a direct hint that they would not be limited to this and in the near future they would move on to measures like attempts to remove us from the wikidot platform.

---

Apparently, our English colleagues did not expect any resistance from our side (the Chinese branch changed its license without any discussion).

---

Since our opponents in conversations referred to the fact that we allegedly violate international laws and present them as criminals (!), We decided to seek legal advice.

---

However, an individual survey of each author of the English wiki seemed too time-consuming to us, so it was decided to change the commercial license for translated articles (despite the fact that translations in Russia still enjoy independent copyright) – as a gesture of goodwill, as well as for optimization of work processes. In addition, new works of authorship will be published already under a commercial license (hereinafter referred to as CL), and also each author has the right to change the NCL to CL for his author’s articles at will.

This option was proposed by us for the English wiki as a compromise.

Was this option enough? No, our English colleagues showed a rare stubbornness bordering on stubbornness and did not appreciate the favor he had done. The English wiki did not change its decision, arguing that we must all stand behind one shield, otherwise this shield will be useless. They were “terribly sorry” but ended up removing the link to our branch from the main page of the English wiki.

---

Well, the relationship between the sites has deteriorated.

---

They may try to evict us from Wikidot, but we are not sure that they will decide on this (we have already given legal arguments, we will give them again for the Wikidot staff). In any case, there is a backup plan for this, and we will not lie for a long time in the event of such an outcome. We will not disclose details yet.

They also thought about a hypothetical trial, but the likelihood of such a scenario is extremely small due to their limited resources.

---

Of course, it is sad that we and the English wiki did not manage to agree, after all, we are doing the same thing and it is a pity that sometimes legal subtleties are at the forefront, and not healthy relationships between branches.

---

For our part, we have been and remain open to dialogue with the English wiki, but only in a dialogue format, and not in the form of ultimatums and threats. We express the hope that in the future we will avoid such formulations in the framework of our bilateral relations.

---

It is high time for us to stop feeling obligated to the Anglo site. Grateful – perhaps (even in light of what they’ve done recently). Our creativity should not be considered secondary or unworthy just because we write in Russian, and not in the original language. We are doing the same thing as our Western colleagues – we collectively create an amazing literary universe.

---

As for “not inferior to English” – I strongly disagree, but this is a subjective opinion. Personally, I have not seen a single -RU object that compares to the many 2000s -EN objects or the same SCP-001s. This is IMHO.

---

He who is not with us is against us. Do you consider yourself a part of our “community”?

---

Everyone comes here because of three English articles, which even on the English site is considered bad form to love.

---

Of course, it’s good that we came up with at least some canons and laid out on the shelves standards for containment cells, weapons of MTF fighters, even amnestics managed to write down letter by letter long before the Americans wrote their manual with pictures and flowers.

---

But the bad thing, I think, is that we are used to scolding the American branch. And I know exactly at what time this habit took shape in us – when I translated “Steel Dan”. And away we go – oh, the Americans have thermonuclear doldons! ah, Americans have fart-flying cows! ah, the Americans have a loud crake-idiot (although, if for the garlic, then I myself am not very impressed with the idea of Dr. Because of this, we have become firmly convinced that the RU-branch is exclusive and that only here everything is correct and true, while the Americans are full of sodomites.

---

We are used to scolding the Americans for the fact that they rivet new objects a hundred a day.

---

But in our country everyone began to believe that the Foundation was such solid science fiction that no diamond was lying around. And only those who have read the complete collections of Lem, Asimov, Sartre, Camus, and any other existentialists to a heap and know them by heart are worthy of writing objects in our country.

---

You can also, of course, scold the Americans for having created a bureaucracy in the face of all kinds of committees (like the licensing committee, which has already become the talk of the town). But we also have our own bureaucracy. Again, in the form of those vowel and unspoken rules that we ourselves have invented.

---

And I want to say one more thing – we are slowly but surely transforming into an “illite” community.

I remember that during that meeting, in a tweet (like) the Special Officer was asked a question – is there any “ilitka” in the Foundation? He answered in the negative.

All this is not true. We have an “Illitka”, in every community it should be. It’s just that our “fondobogs” with a sense of accomplished duty moved to the discord-chyatik, where they can now rest on their laurels and conduct idle conversations on all sorts of aloof topics.

---

Our community for the most part has long seemed to me a closed club of some kind of pampered aristocrats who, seeing another absurdity like a hemp with eyes, who knows how to bake pancakes and blow up the brains of all people within a radius of 5 km, and at the same time has an assessment on the American wiki in the area +100, they immediately start groaning, fanning themselves with fans, dropping gold pince-nez into glasses of 1837 chardonnay and exclaiming indignantly “Monsieur Pierre! Just look how disgusting merde is now in vogue with these cross-snouted rednecks from Texas!”

---

When we compare RU-articles with EN-articles, this is elitism (if, of course, the comparison is in favor of RU). And maintaining quality is when we compare RU-articles with RU-articles, so that the new ones are at least no worse than the existing ones, and ideally they get better and better.

---

Simply put, what we are proud of in our articles and what we consider to be their advantage, Anglicans often find on the contrary a disadvantage, and would willingly remake it in their own way. To put it even simpler, we look in their eyes the same way they look in ours.

---

Our branch and their corny are different. I do not see anything reprehensible that we look down on the Anglophilia, because it is mutual. We are just websites of different tailoring, and our attitude to the canon is different. From our side, we can be called an ilito, the Anglicans, I am sure, think the same. They have some quality criteria, we have others. We are not snickering or overly demanding, we have too high an entry threshold, etc., we are corny different. And we should be proud of this, and not complain about the fact that “there, like the Angliks, there is room for imagination, freedom, and there is no Polygon!” (“Polygon” is seemingly a idiosyncrasy of Google Translate; a reference to a part of the -RU site or forums.)

---

When I post the article, I regard the absence of comments on it as a good sign, since those same gentlemen in pince-nez bowed their heads approvingly and continued to drink their chardonnay.

---

Personally, I do not remember that someone spoke negatively about all the activities of the Anglo-branch in general. Criticism of their individual articles – yes, there is such a thing. But I think this is normal. It’s just that our views do not coincide with theirs. Nothing can be done about it, this is normal. In the end, as already mentioned, our creativity also does not always suit them.

---

In my opinion, the best English objects are the first thousand… The current English ones, on the contrary, do not impress me much.

---

Many came to the Foundation because of the Fantastic Four: 106; 173; 096; 049.

---

Little is known about -RU objects in general circles, and this cannot but grieve.

---

I deliberately went through the list of -RU objects, and did not find anything particularly remarkable for myself. Although, I can admit, I could have looked badly.

---

I didn’t want to offend, offend, humiliate or do other bad things. I am simply offended that the only -RU site of the Fund is becoming “ilite”. Look for yourself at the authors of the latest articles that have passed to the main site. Among them are only those who have been here for a very, very long time (with a few exceptions). Take a look: -EN branch lives, blooms, yes, maybe not all objects are perfect and good there, but there certainly is an object for every taste. Even that “Steel Dan” will appeal to a random person. (This is a reference to SCP-297, written by Dr.Clef.)

---

You are a community / community that continues, and in many plans also creates an English-American project. Everyone develops a culture of speech, translators practice foreign languages, biologists / technicians / militarists / others confirm knowledge when they write an object or other articles. This is wonderful!

---

And I also did not expect that I would call such a crowd of messages, and that I myself would write such . Well, basically, it’s better than sleeping.

---

It’s just that in the West, copyrights are still a sacred cow. If they have already managed to arrange legal proceedings over the monkey selfie, then what to say about our case.

---

By chance, I, in some way, am familiar with the problem (in the world a lawyer by profession, an advisor in a law firm of this profile, not the last in Russia, although I specialize mainly in bankruptcy, land payments and antimonopoly regulation). And the consultation that was voiced by a lawyer (judging by the above summary) seems to me not that incorrect, but not entirely correct from the point of view of a number of nuances related to the specifics of the implementation and protection of rights to works on the Internet. However, I do not undertake to formulate my remarks now, because there is a lot to be double-checked and discussed with more knowledgeable colleagues.

---

So, among all these annexed licenses, sanctions restrictions on partnerships and counter-sanctions srachs, it remains completely incomprehensible where to go to rally and what posters need to be carried in order for common sense to prevail?

Are we sticking to the horn because of the likelihood of activating long-dead authors who are hypothetically capable of recalling their content? So we sacrifice the probability (very low kmk) of golden spoons and drink tea with cupronickel in the corner of Chinese counterfeits (however, China, ironically, unlike us, is quite an original brand).

I do not speak for everyone, but I personally will only be glad if someone is able to turn my translations or articles on the site into their commercial benefit. Can’t a decision on a forced change of license be taken by an active majority vote, or is it an onli dictatorship?

---

If Fishmonger showed us something besides his stupidity, it is that the Anglicans themselves are afraid of the courts, we answer them the same, for example, by the fact that they do not have copyright for the objects, only the author has them (and in my opinion it is better the object would automatically become a national property)

---

I wonder if someone will undertake to write a short story based on history, about the breakaway Russian branch (a kind of rebels of chaos 2.0. Or the only adequate group in the fund that has remained true to ideals and has not undergone decay from the inside. Or … in general, how to look). You can remember a lot more, because the branches are really different. It may even develop into a separate canon, where RU takes control over the entire territory of the Russian Federation (and maybe not only) and competes with the main Fund.

You can fantasize about the topic, but I would not write and approve the canon generated by someone’s watchman’s syndrome.

Other References

-RU presents licensing challenges to -EN^[59]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-2296645/ads, archive

SCP (-EN) Ambassador Hub

Archived O5 Post re: GeneR and -RU’s use of -EN articles^[60]http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-609236/archived-russian-licensing, archive

Archived Compilation of Licensing Records^[61]http://05command.wikidot.com/archived:reports, archive