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

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>> 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.)
>
>  

Uhm. I fail to see how that is obvious. So there obviously
is a dispute (that you didn't foresee ;)

Wholesale use of wikimedias content isn't _easily_ feasible
on knol. I would say impossible, even.

Individual contributions have a more nuanced situation,
where there are differing origins of the content.

Consider a case where a contributor has prior to editing
their content into wikipedia, already entered their
content into Public Domain. We do not as far as I know
disallow use of text that has entered into the Public
Domain, else we wouldn't have incorporated that old
Brittish Encyclopaedic ventures text which has its
copyright expired, now would we?

This kind of content can not be considered barred
from being added from wikipedia to knol, or can it?

I at least don't understand how it could be. If the
GFDL's viral nature is retroactive in a fashion that
previously PD work is no longer usable in that
manner, I must say I have understood something
really really wrong.

Now if one reads Mike Godwins text closely it does
say "content produced under WMF's licensing options",
which, I suppose, means text that didn't exist in a
published form before being entered into wikimedia.
That is a very interesting turn of phrase and bears
some thinking about.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen





_______________________________________________
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

Teun Spaans
I just checked a few of the knol links supplied at the start of this thread
and some of them have been deleted or withdrawn by their publishers.


On 7/31/08, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> 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.)
> >
> >
>
> Uhm. I fail to see how that is obvious. So there obviously
> is a dispute (that you didn't foresee ;)
>
> Wholesale use of wikimedias content isn't _easily_ feasible
> on knol. I would say impossible, even.
>
> Individual contributions have a more nuanced situation,
> where there are differing origins of the content.
>
> Consider a case where a contributor has prior to editing
> their content into wikipedia, already entered their
> content into Public Domain. We do not as far as I know
> disallow use of text that has entered into the Public
> Domain, else we wouldn't have incorporated that old
> Brittish Encyclopaedic ventures text which has its
> copyright expired, now would we?
>
> This kind of content can not be considered barred
> from being added from wikipedia to knol, or can it?
>
> I at least don't understand how it could be. If the
> GFDL's viral nature is retroactive in a fashion that
> previously PD work is no longer usable in that
> manner, I must say I have understood something
> really really wrong.
>
> Now if one reads Mike Godwins text closely it does
> say "content produced under WMF's licensing options",
> which, I suppose, means text that didn't exist in a
> published form before being entered into wikimedia.
> That is a very interesting turn of phrase and bears
> some thinking about.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Angela-5
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Is any GFDL content currently reproduced in WMF
> projects without special permission from the copyright holder?

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_(season_2) is one of many examples.

There was once some attribution to Wikia here but it got removed for
being "tmbox"...

Angela

_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-3
2008/7/31 Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>:

> 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.


Really? I thought CC-BY could be merged into GFDL okay.


- 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

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

Newyorkbrad writes:

> 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.

Keep in mind that this is unexplored territory even for me, but I can  
give you my impressions of the problems I see with the three licensing  
options Knol offers.

1) With regard to CC-BY:

It's not a question of one license's being more restrictive than the  
other, exactly. It's that the Share Alike (SA) requirement, which  
makes the content truly copyleft, can't be added or subtracted in any  
straightforward way that I can see. (Note that for purposes of  
simplicity I am lumping together GFDL -- Wikipedia's current licensing  
standard -- and CC-BY-SA.  Their requirements are substantively mostly  
the same although formally different.)

How could you add SA, for example, without being the original  
licensor, for importing to Wikipedia? How could you subtract it  
without being the original licensor(s), for importing to Knol?

2) With regard to CC-NC:

That content flatly can't be added to Wikipedia, which expressly  
allows commercial reuse and derivative use.  And, with regard to  
importing to Knol,  how could you add the NC requirement without being  
the original licensor? Indeed, how could you add it at all if you've  
already granted, in effect, a commercial license by contributing the  
content to Wikipedia?

3) With regard to "All Rights Reserved," I think the problem of  
importing and exporting to and from Knol from Wikipedia is obvious.

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

Well, the question here is whether Knol's backers are intending the  
results of their licensing options. I see no reason to think they  
don't intend those results.

Perhaps I'm wrong about this. If so, I think it might be worthwhile  
for someone to raise publicly the question of whether Knol's licensing  
options are intentionally incompatible with Wikipedia's.  I don't  
think it's optimal for the Foundation itself to do this -- it would  
sound like we're trying to impose our own paradigm on Google, which is  
not our aim.


--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

Massimiliano Lincetto
2008/7/31 Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>:
> How could you add SA, for example, without being the original
> licensor, for importing to Wikipedia? How could you subtract it
> without being the original licensor(s), for importing to Knol?

As long as you put the author's credits, respecting in this way the
request of attribution, you can change the license for your derivative
works and this includes also adding a SA clause. At least this is what
I have ever believed.

Massimiliano

_______________________________________________
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

Bryan Tong Minh
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-3
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 2) With regard to CC-NC:
>
> That content flatly can't be added to Wikipedia, which expressly
> allows commercial reuse and derivative use.  And, with regard to
> importing to Knol,  how could you add the NC requirement without being
> the original licensor? Indeed, how could you add it at all if you've
> already granted, in effect, a commercial license by contributing the
> content to Wikipedia?
>

Of course assuming that the content on Wikipedia and Knol is exactly
the same or with uncopyrightable changes. When you create a true
derivative work you are as far as I am aware to license that work as
BY-NC if the original work is CC-BY.

Bryan

_______________________________________________
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 Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 1) With regard to CC-BY:
>
> It's not a question of one license's being more restrictive than the
> other, exactly. It's that the Share Alike (SA) requirement, which
> makes the content truly copyleft, can't be added or subtracted in any
> straightforward way that I can see. (Note that for purposes of
> simplicity I am lumping together GFDL -- Wikipedia's current licensing
> standard -- and CC-BY-SA.  Their requirements are substantively mostly
> the same although formally different.)
>
> How could you add SA, for example, without being the original
> licensor, for importing to Wikipedia?
>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 1) With regard to CC-BY:
>
> It's not a question of one license's being more restrictive than the
> other, exactly. It's that the Share Alike (SA) requirement, which
> makes the content truly copyleft, can't be added or subtracted in any
> straightforward way that I can see. (Note that for purposes of
> simplicity I am lumping together GFDL -- Wikipedia's current licensing
> standard -- and CC-BY-SA.  Their requirements are substantively mostly
> the same although formally different.)
>
> How could you add SA, for example, without being the original
> licensor, for importing to Wikipedia?

The SA license would apply to the derivative work.  The non-SA license
would apply to the original work.  You aren't "adding SA", you're
creating a new work, and licensing that new work under SA.

I really don't understand the question.  If it can't be legally done,
what law are you breaking?  Whose copyright is being violated?

_______________________________________________
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
>> How could you add SA, for example, without being the original
>> licensor, for importing to Wikipedia?
>
> The SA license would apply to the derivative work.  The non-SA license
> would apply to the original work.  You aren't "adding SA", you're
> creating a new work, and licensing that new work under SA.

That's my understanding as well. There's nothing stopping a bit of
content being available under multiple licenses. In this case it's
available under CC-BY as a stand-alone work and GFDL as part of a
large work. I don't see any problem with that. There's nothing
stopping people using the original work under the original license
just because you've used it under a more restrictive one.

_______________________________________________
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

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-3
Mike Godwin wrote:

> Newyorkbrad writes:
>
>  
>> 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.
>>    
>
> Keep in mind that this is unexplored territory even for me, but I can  
> give you my impressions of the problems I see with the three licensing  
> options Knol offers.
>
> 1) With regard to CC-BY:
>
> It's not a question of one license's being more restrictive than the  
> other, exactly. It's that the Share Alike (SA) requirement, which  
> makes the content truly copyleft, can't be added or subtracted in any  
> straightforward way that I can see. (Note that for purposes of  
> simplicity I am lumping together GFDL -- Wikipedia's current licensing  
> standard -- and CC-BY-SA.  Their requirements are substantively mostly  
> the same although formally different.)
>
> How could you add SA, for example, without being the original  
> licensor, for importing to Wikipedia? How could you subtract it  
> without being the original licensor(s), for importing to Knol?
>
>  

Perhaps I am being just too dense, but my answer
would be _not_ "without being the original licensor(s)".
That is, by *being* the original licensor, or by obtaining
their explicit permission.

I am not clear that CC-BY constitutes an explicit
permission to use in Wikipedias current fashion,
since I am not either a copyleft specialist, but I
could imagine some would so argue.

We have, as far as I know, no problem accepting
contributions from people who live in countries
which acknowledge "moral rights", such as my
own (Finland), and which are thus fundamentally
*more* restrictive than CC-BY as a baseline in a
form that makes is so that PD does not really
exist in those countires at all.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
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

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette
These issues are only being worked out because of Nathan's experiment. Kudos
to him!

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:38 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
>



--
(Not sent from my iPhone)
_______________________________________________
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

Massimiliano writes:

>> How could you add SA, for example, without being the original
>> licensor, for importing to Wikipedia? How could you subtract it
>> without being the original licensor(s), for importing to Knol?
>
> As long as you put the author's credits, respecting in this way the
> request of attribution, you can change the license for your derivative
> works and this includes also adding a SA clause. At least this is what
> I have ever believed.

Sure, a sufficiently transformative derivative work might give you the  
ability to create a new license with strong copyleft. But that's not  
what we've been seeing on Knol or what we've been discussing here, it  
seems to me. Instead, we've been talking about importing and exporting  
whole articles.


--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

Bugzilla from tracy.poff@gmail.com
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sure, a sufficiently transformative derivative work might give you the
> ability to create a new license with strong copyleft. But that's not
> what we've been seeing on Knol or what we've been discussing here, it
> seems to me. Instead, we've been talking about importing and exporting
> whole articles.

It is the position of Creative Commons, as I understand it, that if I
use a work which is licensed to me under the CC-BY license, I can then
license my derivative work to others under CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, GFDL,
or any other license I choose that will preserve attribution of the
author of the original work--or, indeed, I can choose not to grant any
license at all to my work when distributing it. It seems to me that
you are thinking of the sharealike licenses.

See also Question 2.15 of
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

--
Tracy Poff
http://sopoforic.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
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 Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Massimiliano writes:
>
>>> How could you add SA, for example, without being the original
>>> licensor, for importing to Wikipedia? How could you subtract it
>>> without being the original licensor(s), for importing to Knol?
>>
>> As long as you put the author's credits, respecting in this way the
>> request of attribution, you can change the license for your derivative
>> works and this includes also adding a SA clause. At least this is what
>> I have ever believed.
>
> Sure, a sufficiently transformative derivative work might give you the
> ability to create a new license with strong copyleft. But that's not
> what we've been seeing on Knol or what we've been discussing here, it
> seems to me. Instead, we've been talking about importing and exporting
> whole articles.
>
Still, what legal problems could possibly be created by copying a
CC-BY article from Knol to Wikipedia and then not making any changes,
as long as you maintain the attribution?  Presumably, the whole point
of importing it would be to improve it, and the "sufficiently
transformative" bar is incredibly low, but even if you don't create a
derivative, what's the problem?

_______________________________________________
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 Bugzilla from tracy.poff@gmail.com
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Tracy Poff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It is the position of Creative Commons, as I understand it, that if I
> use a work which is licensed to me under the CC-BY license, I can then
> license my derivative work to others under CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, GFDL,
> or any other license I choose that will preserve attribution of the
> author of the original work

Well, playing devil's advocate for a moment, I could see one potential
problem with adding CC-BY text into an already existing GFDL work...
If CC-BY imposes *any* requirements not required by the GFDL, then you
might have trouble with the "add no other conditions whatsoever to
those of this License" part.

I don't know of any such requirements, but I'm not willing to say it's
impossible to find any.

In an unrelated comment, some people were wondering *why* Google is
giving such limited license choices.  I don't know for sure, of
course, and I don't think they'll give a straight answer, but one
possibility is that they're worried about the implications ShareAlike
licenses would have on embedded ads.

_______________________________________________
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 Anthony-73
2008/8/1 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> Still, what legal problems could possibly be created by copying a
> CC-BY article from Knol to Wikipedia and then not making any changes,
> as long as you maintain the attribution?  Presumably, the whole point
> of importing it would be to improve it, and the "sufficiently
> transformative" bar is incredibly low, but even if you don't create a
> derivative, what's the problem?

Outside of the legal technicalities (IE sticking to thing I think were
intended) the requirement to include a copy of the URL of the license
(or the actual license) is a pain.

Moveing onto the legal technicalities

the "You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License..."
is a problem since the notice that refers to the license is part of
the interface and is probably copyright google and thus non free.

There is also the fairly standard "keep intact all copyright notices"
invariant section bit which is allowed under the GFDL but we generally
prefer to delete content rather than deal with copyright notices.
--
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
> In an unrelated comment, some people were wondering *why* Google is
> giving such limited license choices.  I don't know for sure, of
> course, and I don't think they'll give a straight answer, but one
> possibility is that they're worried about the implications ShareAlike
> licenses would have on embedded ads.

Unless they're worried about reusers having embedded ads, I don't see
a problem - Google require you to grant them a pretty wide ranging
license in addition to whatever you give the public.

_______________________________________________
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 Goodman
I know the following is not the current situation, but:

The only thing we have any real reason to insist on for Wikipedia
content is attribution, and the only attribution that should be
necessary is attribution to Wikipedia with a link to where exactly it
was taken.

Everything we do beyond this is a practical restriction on the use of
our content. Rather than making it free in any real sense of the word
except the artificiality of copyleft, it makes it less free. Freedom
with respect to intellectual property is the opportunity to take
intellectual content and do what you will with it. Free material is
material you can us for your own purposes, whatever they may be. (and
I point out that putting restrictive licenses on something and
republishing it does not destroy the underlying freedom; you can claim
what copyright you want to claim, but it doesn't mean you have it.
People do this with PD US government material routinely.)

I seriously doubt any contributor of Wikipedia text content really
cares about individual attribution to his individual contribution. How
could they, given that we permit any modification whatever, and the
contribution will in most cases be entangled hopeless in hundreds of
others. When you read the disclaimer, you know that you are leaving it
open to be twisted in any manner whatsoever and used for purposes
completely alien to yours. Sometimes I care that people preserve the
attribution to me personally of something I write--in those cases I
write for a more convention medium--and will usually ask not just BY,
but NC. Most people care about those two concepts--they write for
reputation, and if there's any money, they want some of it. But not
when they write for Wikipedia. There's no money, and your contribution
will be to the encyclopedia as a whole. Yes, some people say that they
wrote certain articles, but the most they can really say is that they
started them or wrote some of what remains in the content.  You get no
reputation from writing scattered sentences.

Illustrations I am told may be different. sounds reasonable--they
carry individual licensing statements--though again I am puzzled,
because they are open to any editing whatever. If a photographer
contributes his art, he lets us distort it. The version he
contributed, though, is still there.

There is a real point in advocating copyleft to change the world to
the use of free content; I fully understand the desire to change the
world to the merits of "libre" publishing.  But maintaining it in
Wikipedia is  pointy--wp is there as an encyclopedia to be used, and
the very thought that one could not take text and put it wherever you
please is completely opposite to the spirit of contribution. Its the
zealots and their legal ingenuity triumphing over commonsense and the
need to actually provide a free encyclopedia in the way ordinary
people mean "free".  They're using the technicalities of their
licenses to restrict content if other  people want to use differently
from the way they had in mind when they thought about how to develop
non-commercial software. A brilliant innovation--but it should not
apply to us.

NYBrad show the right way a good lawyer approaches things: decide what
we want to do, and find a legal way of doing it.  I'm not one, but I
think  the easiest legal way is to change our license to the freest
possible, and give people the right to ask that the content they
contributed under another assumption be withdrawn and their text
rewritten. If we need to rewrite two paragraphs a year, which is what
i expect, i hereby offer to do it.

On 7/31/08, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> In an unrelated comment, some people were wondering *why* Google is
>> giving such limited license choices.  I don't know for sure, of
>> course, and I don't think they'll give a straight answer, but one
>> possibility is that they're worried about the implications ShareAlike
>> licenses would have on embedded ads.
>
> Unless they're worried about reusers having embedded ads, I don't see
> a problem - Google require you to grant them a pretty wide ranging
> license in addition to whatever you give the public.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

_______________________________________________
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

Tracy Poff writes:

> It is the position of Creative Commons, as I understand it, that if I
> use a work which is licensed to me under the CC-BY license, I can then
> license my derivative work to others under CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, GFDL,
> or any other license I choose that will preserve attribution of the
> author of the original work--or, indeed, I can choose not to grant any
> license at all to my work when distributing it. It seems to me that
> you are thinking of the sharealike licenses.
>
> See also Question 2.15 of
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

I think this is a great point, but the question here is what "use"  
means. If it means simple duplication, then I don't see any huge  
problem with  Knol-to-Wikipedia transportation, although Wikipedia-to-
Knol transportation may remain problematic.

Keep in mind that mere duplication is not normally judged to be a  
derivative work, and mere duplication is what started this thread.

But I think you have put your finger on the problem. Everyone agrees  
that free culture means free knowledge. Not everyone agrees that free  
culture means free expression (i.e., the ability of a subsequent user  
to use freely licensed content without any restriction.).

Speaking conservatively, I am not inclined to interpret CC-BY as  
authorizing mere duplication of an article that is then represented by  
a declaration that the content is available under a GFDL or CC-BY-SA  
license.

And, of course, the CC-BY option is, for various reasons, not likely  
to be the dominant license of Knol.


--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

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

David Goodman writes:

> The only thing we have any real reason to insist on for Wikipedia
> content is attribution, and the only attribution that should be
> necessary is attribution to Wikipedia with a link to where exactly it
> was taken.

And yet Knol is not yet requiring this of articles taken from  
Wikipedia and transplanted without editing into Knol.

>  There is a real point in advocating copyleft to change the world to
> the use of free content; I fully understand the desire to change the
> world to the merits of "libre" publishing.  But maintaining it in
> Wikipedia is  pointy--wp is there as an encyclopedia to be used, and
> the very thought that one could not take text and put it wherever you
> please is completely opposite to the spirit of contribution.

This is a perfectly respectable comment, but strong copyleft  
provisions in existing licenses require that subsequent duplication or  
derivative works express the strong copyleft principle. I think we all  
agree that GFDL is strong copyleft, that Wikipedia content is GFDL-
licensed, so that subsequent use of the content by Knol or anyone else  
either needs to follow a strong copyleft license or else be lawful  
under the exceptions provided by copyright law.

> NYBrad show the right way a good law
> yer approaches things: decide what
> we want to do, and find a legal way of doing it.

A good constitutional lawyer necessarily recognizes that he or she is  
bound by overarching principles that may not serve one's client's  
interests, or even one's own interests.

We may wish for things to be different, but we must honor the promises  
we have made.



--Mike





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