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 nawrich@gmail.com 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 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l