Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
78 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Nathan Awrich
Before its pointed out by someone else - TOS 5 says Google takes no
"ownership or control" while TOS 8 requires you to grant them a license to
reuse the content, so that isn't an obvious textual conflict.

What are the practical repercussions, if any, of granting that particular
license to Google? It looks like it might be a violation of the GFDL, but
beyond the technical violation what undesirable outcomes occur for the
content and its creators?

Nathan

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> So which is it? If its the second, then the portion of the content posted
> by users is licensed under whichever license they choose. Is item 8 intended
> to allow Google to publish the content through Knol or some other as yet
> undetermined service?
>
> The "stealing" language is a bit strong, by the way. If anything, reposting
> articles with attribution but with a license that grants Google unacceptable
> rights is simply allowing Google to steal Wikipedia content - or giving it
> an opening to do so, which I doubt it would take.
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The Google terms of service item 8 does seem to present a problem. here it
> is:
>
> *8.*      *License to Google.*
[snip]
> But it also appears to conflict with this item of the same TOS:
>
> 5.1.  *No Google Ownership of User Content.*  Google claims no ownership or
> control over any content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through
[snip]

You've granted them an expansive license (which you don't actually
have the right to grant for most freely licensed content found
elsewhere) and they disclaim ownership.  License != ownership, so it's
not a conflict .. even if does seem somewhat confusing.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

geni
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
2008/7/28 Nathan <[hidden email]>:
> So which is it? If its the second, then the portion of the content posted by
> users is licensed under whichever license they choose. Is item 8 intended to
> allow Google to publish the content through Knol or some other as yet
> undetermined service?

You hold all the rights but license them to google. Section 8 is
partly allowing Knol to publish without worrying about copyright but
also allowing google to do whatever they like with the content without
having to worry about copyright (screenshots in ads incorporating into
google maps or some future social networking stuff whatever).

It's a fairly standard clause and not really a problem except that it
creates issues if you wish to upload third party that is under a
copyleft license. There are a couple of ways google could get around
the problem but they are not likely to consider it enough of an issue
to do anything about it.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
2008/7/28 Nathan <[hidden email]>:
> Before its pointed out by someone else - TOS 5 says Google takes no
> "ownership or control" while TOS 8 requires you to grant them a license to
> reuse the content, so that isn't an obvious textual conflict.
>
> What are the practical repercussions, if any, of granting that particular
> license to Google? It looks like it might be a violation of the GFDL, but
> beyond the technical violation what undesirable outcomes occur for the
> content and its creators?

It allows Google to use the content without following the restrictions
imposed by GFDL. The only one that's likely to be a serious issue is
that Google doesn't have to freely license derivative content.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Hoi,
It is simple, when you assign a license to do practically everything,  that
you have not given your copyright away. You only gave Google a license to
use this material in the way defined. Now the trick question is, are you in
a position to do this. Given that Wikipedia articles are collaborative
works, you do not have the right to change the license to the whole of the
article because you are not the owner of the article and consequently not
the copyright holder.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The Google terms of service item 8 does seem to present a problem. here it
> is:
>
> *8.*      *License to Google.*
> By submitting, posting or displaying content as an Author, Co-Author,
> Collaborator, Commenter, Reviewer, or User on or through the Service,  you
> grant to Google a non‑exclusive, perpetual, worldwide and royalty-free
> right
> and license to (i) use, copy, distribute, transmit, modify, create
> derivative works based on, publicly perform (including but not limited to
> by
> digital audio transmission), and publicly display the content through
> Google
> services; (ii) allow other users to access and use the content through
> Google services; and (iii) permit Google to display advertisements on the
> Google sites containing the content.  In addition, you grant to Google a
> nonexclusive, perpetual, worldwide and royalty-free license to use your
> name, likeness, image, voice, and biographical information (and, where
> applicable, your trademarks, service marks, trade names, logos, and other
> business identifiers) in connection with the content and Google's use of
> the
> content through the Google services.
>
> But it also appears to conflict with this item of the same TOS:
>
> 5.1.  *No Google Ownership of User Content.*  Google claims no ownership or
> control over any content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or
> through
> the Service. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all
> patent, trademark and copyright to any content you submit, post or display
> on or through the Service and you are responsible for protecting those
> rights, as appropriate.
>
> So which is it? If its the second, then the portion of the content posted
> by
> users is licensed under whichever license they choose. Is item 8 intended
> to
> allow Google to publish the content through Knol or some other as yet
> undetermined service?
>
> The "stealing" language is a bit strong, by the way. If anything, reposting
> articles with attribution but with a license that grants Google
> unacceptable
> rights is simply allowing Google to steal Wikipedia content - or giving it
> an opening to do so, which I doubt it would take.
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Effe iets anders
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
All Rights reserved is more restrictive then the GFDL and therefore
not allowed to relisence with if I am informed correctly. Unless Knol
allowed GFDL as license option, or CC-BY-SA-3.0 *and* GFDL/CC-BY-SA
get compatible (not yet the case) you will not be allowed to upload
Wikipedia content to Knol unless you are the sole author (such as I
did with Ter Heijde I think)

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2008/7/28 Nathan <[hidden email]>:

> Right, I'm not by any means an expert on the licenses (everytime I read
> about them, I look them up again to remind myself what the differences are)
> and it did look to me like the issue was one of relicensing.
>
> At any rate, they are all licensed appropriately now. Thank you to whoever
> made the suggestion of posting the notice and changing the publication
> option to "All rights reserved."
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The Google terms of service item 8 does seem to present a problem. here it
>> is:
>>
>> *8.*      *License to Google.*
> [snip]
>> But it also appears to conflict with this item of the same TOS:
>>
>> 5.1.  *No Google Ownership of User Content.*  Google claims no ownership or
>> control over any content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through
> [snip]
>
> You've granted them an expansive license (which you don't actually
> have the right to grant for most freely licensed content found
> elsewhere) and they disclaim ownership.  License != ownership, so it's
> not a conflict .. even if does seem somewhat confusing.
>
But that's nonsense.  You obviously haven't granted Google such a
license if you don't have a right to do so.  If anything you've broken
Google's Terms of Service, not the GFDL.

Greg, pick an article which you feel you've made a significant
contribution to.  I'll upload it to Knol, following the terms of the
GFDL, and you can issue a takedown notice.  Then I'll issue a putback
notice, you can sue me, and we'll finally have a GFDL test case.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

geni
2008/7/28 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> But that's nonsense.  You obviously haven't granted Google such a
> license if you don't have a right to do so.  If anything you've broken
> Google's Terms of Service, not the GFDL.
>
> Greg, pick an article which you feel you've made a significant
> contribution to.  I'll upload it to Knol, following the terms of the
> GFDL, and you can issue a takedown notice.  Then I'll issue a putback
> notice, you can sue me, and we'll finally have a GFDL test case.

The validity of the GFDL isn't relevant to the case. If the  GFDL is
valid you lose for failing to follow it's terms. If the GFDL is not
valid you lose under straightforward copyright. No actual reason for
the court to consider which of these is the case.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
> But that's nonsense.  You obviously haven't granted Google such a
> license if you don't have a right to do so.  If anything you've broken
> Google's Terms of Service, not the GFDL.

That's a good point. It's Google that's potentially violating the GFDL
(if they used their rights under the terms of service), the
contributor is just in breach of contract with Google.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Effe iets anders
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM, effe iets anders
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> All Rights reserved is more restrictive then the GFDL and therefore
> not allowed to relisence with if I am informed correctly.

The phrase "All Rights Reserved" is fairly meaningless nowadays.
Obviously you can claim "all rights reserved" and still issue
licenses, people do it all the time (just usually not such broad
licenses to such broad groups of people).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Philippe Beaudette
In reply to this post by Effe iets anders
Yeah, to be blunt... Nathan, you're in over your head on this one.  
I'd suggest you pull them down until these issues are worked out.

_____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Tulsa, OK
[hidden email]




On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:20 PM, effe iets anders wrote:

> All Rights reserved is more restrictive then the GFDL and therefore
> not allowed to relisence with if I am informed correctly. Unless Knol
> allowed GFDL as license option, or CC-BY-SA-3.0 *and* GFDL/CC-BY-SA
> get compatible (not yet the case) you will not be allowed to upload
> Wikipedia content to Knol unless you are the sole author (such as I
> did with Ter Heijde I think)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2008/7/28 Nathan <[hidden email]>:
>> Right, I'm not by any means an expert on the licenses (everytime I  
>> read
>> about them, I look them up again to remind myself what the  
>> differences are)
>> and it did look to me like the issue was one of relicensing.
>>
>> At any rate, they are all licensed appropriately now. Thank you to  
>> whoever
>> made the suggestion of posting the notice and changing the  
>> publication
>> option to "All rights reserved."
>>
>> Nathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>> foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Nathan Awrich
Oh, I did awhile ago. It doesn't look totally cut and dry, but until it gets
a little clearer for me they are down.

Nathan

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yeah, to be blunt... Nathan, you're in over your head on this one.
> I'd suggest you pull them down until these issues are worked out.
>
> _____________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Tulsa, OK
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:20 PM, effe iets anders wrote:
>
> > All Rights reserved is more restrictive then the GFDL and therefore
> > not allowed to relisence with if I am informed correctly. Unless Knol
> > allowed GFDL as license option, or CC-BY-SA-3.0 *and* GFDL/CC-BY-SA
> > get compatible (not yet the case) you will not be allowed to upload
> > Wikipedia content to Knol unless you are the sole author (such as I
> > did with Ter Heijde I think)
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2008/7/28 Nathan <[hidden email]>:
> >> Right, I'm not by any means an expert on the licenses (everytime I
> >> read
> >> about them, I look them up again to remind myself what the
> >> differences are)
> >> and it did look to me like the issue was one of relicensing.
> >>
> >> At any rate, they are all licensed appropriately now. Thank you to
> >> whoever
> >> made the suggestion of posting the notice and changing the
> >> publication
> >> option to "All rights reserved."
> >>
> >> Nathan
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >> foundation-l
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Philippe Beaudette
That was smart.  Thanks. :-)

_____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Tulsa, OK
[hidden email]




On Jul 28, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Nathan wrote:

> Oh, I did awhile ago. It doesn't look totally cut and dry, but until  
> it gets
> a little clearer for me they are down.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, to be blunt... Nathan, you're in over your head on this one.
>> I'd suggest you pull them down until these issues are worked out.
>>
>> _____________________
>> Philippe Beaudette
>> Tulsa, OK
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:20 PM, effe iets anders wrote:
>>
>>> All Rights reserved is more restrictive then the GFDL and therefore
>>> not allowed to relisence with if I am informed correctly. Unless  
>>> Knol
>>> allowed GFDL as license option, or CC-BY-SA-3.0 *and* GFDL/CC-BY-SA
>>> get compatible (not yet the case) you will not be allowed to upload
>>> Wikipedia content to Knol unless you are the sole author (such as I
>>> did with Ter Heijde I think)
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>> 2008/7/28 Nathan <[hidden email]>:
>>>> Right, I'm not by any means an expert on the licenses (everytime I
>>>> read
>>>> about them, I look them up again to remind myself what the
>>>> differences are)
>>>> and it did look to me like the issue was one of relicensing.
>>>>
>>>> At any rate, they are all licensed appropriately now. Thank you to
>>>> whoever
>>>> made the suggestion of posting the notice and changing the
>>>> publication
>>>> option to "All rights reserved."
>>>>
>>>> Nathan
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>> foundation-l
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>> foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

mboverload-2
Knol is basically a way for people to cut and paste and make ad money with
no effort.

I don't know of any good solutions, or if we even need any solutions.  If we
start harping on Knol then people will think we are "the man" and too
uptight.  "Knowledge should be free, right?"

This is a battle that I'm not sure anyone could, or should win.


On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> That was smart.  Thanks. :-)
>
> _____________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Tulsa, OK
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> > Oh, I did awhile ago. It doesn't look totally cut and dry, but until
> > it gets
> > a little clearer for me they are down.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, to be blunt... Nathan, you're in over your head on this one.
> >> I'd suggest you pull them down until these issues are worked out.
> >>
> >> _____________________
> >> Philippe Beaudette
> >> Tulsa, OK
> >> [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:20 PM, effe iets anders wrote:
> >>
> >>> All Rights reserved is more restrictive then the GFDL and therefore
> >>> not allowed to relisence with if I am informed correctly. Unless
> >>> Knol
> >>> allowed GFDL as license option, or CC-BY-SA-3.0 *and* GFDL/CC-BY-SA
> >>> get compatible (not yet the case) you will not be allowed to upload
> >>> Wikipedia content to Knol unless you are the sole author (such as I
> >>> did with Ter Heijde I think)
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Lodewijk
> >>>
> >>> 2008/7/28 Nathan <[hidden email]>:
> >>>> Right, I'm not by any means an expert on the licenses (everytime I
> >>>> read
> >>>> about them, I look them up again to remind myself what the
> >>>> differences are)
> >>>> and it did look to me like the issue was one of relicensing.
> >>>>
> >>>> At any rate, they are all licensed appropriately now. Thank you to
> >>>> whoever
> >>>> made the suggestion of posting the notice and changing the
> >>>> publication
> >>>> option to "All rights reserved."
> >>>>
> >>>> Nathan
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>>> [hidden email]
> >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >>>> foundation-l
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >> foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

David Gerard-2
2008/7/29 mboverload <[hidden email]>:

> Knol is basically a way for people to cut and paste and make ad money with
> no effort.
> I don't know of any good solutions, or if we even need any solutions.  If we
> start harping on Knol then people will think we are "the man" and too
> uptight.  "Knowledge should be free, right?"


We can and should (and, AFAIK, do) heartily support the CC-BY default
license. Because that's free content, and supporting that wherever it
springs up and making proper free content licenses the *expected
default* for reference works is 100% in line with WMF's mission.
Without us having to do the actual work!


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

geni
In reply to this post by mboverload-2
2008/7/29 mboverload <[hidden email]>:
> Knol is basically a way for people to cut and paste and make ad money with
> no effort.

Made for adsense sites are nothing new. Most of our mirrors are
basicaly made for well various forms of advertising sites.

> I don't know of any good solutions, or if we even need any solutions.

Largely depends if google applies a duplicate content penalty to such
ah "Knols". If they do well I doubt knol internal traffic will be
enough to make them them worthwhile.

>  If we
> start harping on Knol then people will think we are "the man" and too
> uptight.  "Knowledge should be free, right?"

Depends how we do it. You would probably make the argument along the
lines that "all we ever asked for was credit" and "the work was free
keep it so" (okay slightly different phrasing there might be an idea).

> This is a battle that I'm not sure anyone could, or should win.

It could be won yes. The problem is that we only need one person to
start the battle the wrong way and things get messy. That is why it
might be in our interests to get out a carefully worded statement so
that when someone does do something unfortunate it is seen as old
news.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Mike Godwin-3
In reply to this post by Nicolas Guérin-3

David Gerard writes:

> We can and should (and, AFAIK, do) heartily support the CC-BY default
> license. Because that's free content, and supporting that wherever it
> springs up and making proper free content licenses the *expected
> default* for reference works is 100% in line with WMF's mission.
> Without us having to do the actual work!

I think it's proper to say we don't oppose CC-BY, but that it's  
inconsistent with the licensing schemes we've embraced (GFDL and CC-BY-
SA), because it's non-viral -- it doesn't require that derivative  
content be issued under the same free license under which it was  
distributed.

I can't see how content distributed under the licenses Knol offers can  
be reproduced in WMF projects, and I can't see how content produced  
under WMF's licensing options can be reproduced in Knol.  To me, that  
raises a serious problem.


--Mike






_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
On 7/30/08, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> David Gerard writes:
>
> > We can and should (and, AFAIK, do) heartily support the CC-BY default
> > license. Because that's free content, and supporting that wherever it
> > springs up and making proper free content licenses the *expected
> > default* for reference works is 100% in line with WMF's mission.
> > Without us having to do the actual work!
>
> I think it's proper to say we don't oppose CC-BY, but that it's
> inconsistent with the licensing schemes we've embraced (GFDL and CC-BY-
> SA), because it's non-viral -- it doesn't require that derivative
> content be issued under the same free license under which it was
> distributed.
>
> I can't see how content distributed under the licenses Knol offers can
> be reproduced in WMF projects, and I can't see how content produced
> under WMF's licensing options can be reproduced in Knol.  To me, that
> raises a serious problem.
>
> --Mike



I don't mean to denigrate the legal issues here, being a lawyer myself and
all (but not an intellectual property specialist) ... but are the
differences betwen the licenses in this context such as to raise practical
issues, or purely theoretical ones?  If, as is likely, there is frequent
copying of content back-and-forth between the projects no matter what the
policies or licenses say, are there likely to be significant consequences?
If so, what can be done about it?

I'm also curious how the problem can run in both directions.  I can
understand that one license would be more restrictive than the other, such
that material from project A couldn't be freely used in project B.  But the
nuances of the license requirements must be subtle indeed if the
incompatability runs both ways.  Not being a license terms aficionado, I'd
appreciate a layman's explanation of the issues.

Can/should the issues be addressed by discussion with Knol before the
problem grows more serious over time?

Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-3
> I can't see how content distributed under the licenses Knol offers can
> be reproduced in WMF projects, and I can't see how content produced
> under WMF's licensing options can be reproduced in Knol.  To me, that
> raises a serious problem.

Could you explain that? My understanding was that something released
under CC-BY could be used pretty much anywhere as long as it's
appropriately attributed. We attribute all content on Wikipedia, so
why can't we use it? (The other direction obviously can't be done,
there's no dispute there, as far as I can see.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-3
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> David Gerard writes:
>
>> We can and should (and, AFAIK, do) heartily support the CC-BY default
>> license. Because that's free content, and supporting that wherever it
>> springs up and making proper free content licenses the *expected
>> default* for reference works is 100% in line with WMF's mission.
>> Without us having to do the actual work!
>
> I think it's proper to say we don't oppose CC-BY, but that it's
> inconsistent with the licensing schemes we've embraced (GFDL and CC-BY-
> SA), because it's non-viral -- it doesn't require that derivative
> content be issued under the same free license under which it was
> distributed.
>
> I can't see how content distributed under the licenses Knol offers can
> be reproduced in WMF projects, and I can't see how content produced
> under WMF's licensing options can be reproduced in Knol.  To me, that
> raises a serious problem.
>
You seem to be forgetting about Wikinews.

But why can't CC-BY content be reproduced in WMF projects?  And how
could Knol fix that?  Even if Knol allowed licensing under the GFDL,
it still probably couldn't be reproduced in WMF projects, because WMF
projects don't support adding authors to the title page (among other
GFDL requirements).  Is any GFDL content currently reproduced in WMF
projects without special permission from the copyright holder?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234