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