2008/6/13 Amir Michail amichail@gmail.com:

Hi,

I have some GFDL questions with respect to using Wikipedia content in chatbotgame.com. This is a game that rewards players for contributing effective chat rules.

To encourage more people to chat and play, I'm thinking of adding chat rules extracted automatically from Wikipedia content.

So I have some questions:

If you want actual legal advice you will need a lawyer.

(1) The GFDL license makes reference to several concepts that seem to have no relevance to Wikipedia; namely, "secondary section", "invariant section", "cover section", and "title page". Is this correct? Presumably, I can just ignore those parts of the license?

wikipedia comes with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. It may or may not have everything else depending on how you read the license.

(2) Adding chat rules obtained from Wikipedia content will likely result in many players adding rules that are derived from Wikipedia content (e.g., you might copy a chatbot response that comes from Wikipedia into your rule). And so it seems like player chat rules would also need to be under the GFDL. Is that correct?

Depends for short comments they might fall under fair use otherwise yes.

(3) But if player rules are under the GFDL, would I need to make all such rules available?

If they were in use probably otherwise probably not.

What if a player deletes a rule? Must the deleted rule still be available as part of an xml dump say to satisfy the GFDL?

It is generally thought not.

(4) If a player modifies a rule, must the previous version be made available as part of an xml dump?

It is generally thought not.

(5) What constitutes a derivative work?

Under US law?

A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

Rules in this game are scored, so does the score count as part of a derivative work or can it be omitted in an xml dump?

It probably isn't a derivative work.

Clearly, players would like to retain a competitive advantage even if their rules are under the GFDL and hiding rule scores from others would help.

It's hard to figure out what the copyright status of the scores would actually be but probably not GFDL.

(6) Is an xml dump of chat rules at regular intervals or on request enough to satisfy the GFDL?

I'm not actually sure it's relevant to GFDL compliance. The GFDL can't force you to distribute something. So as long as you don't distribute the rules only the stuff generated by them there is no reason under the GFDL to release them.

Your real problem is GFDL text in answers which you/your rule writers are distributing. To get within the spirit of the GFDL you would need to provide a link crediting the authors of each but of GFDL text and a copy of the GFDL.

You might be better starting with wikinews which is under the creative commons Attribution 2.5 license.