Re: [Foundation-l] Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol - Wikimedia-l

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)

31 Jul 31 Jul

5:41 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

On 7/30/08, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org> 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

Reply

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

9:26 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

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

Reply

Anthony

9:19 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org> 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?

Reply

David Gerard

11:44 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

2008/7/31 Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:

...

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.

Reply