After a fast research (about 20 minutes) on Knol, i found several copies from Wikipedia's articles:
* http://knol.google.com/k/alexandre-nouvel/wikipedia/2ggz2lqudrlgu/2# copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
* another http://knol.google.com/k/-/wikipedia/3lr953e1lumvz/8# copy of the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
* http://knol.google.com/k/rui-moura/knol/2q6bmd4rdpda7/2# copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol
* http://knol.google.com/k/benjamin-katlama/new-york-city/34hdx7ks0jha3/23#cop... of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City
* http://knol.google.com/k/seth-rivard/barack-hussein-obama/3snb2eak10854/9#co... of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Hussein_Obama
* http://knol.google.com/k/harish-maleh/florida/122dkfj6v50rl/3# copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida
* http://knol.google.com/k/nathan-awrich/russia/3hc8it3ozukl6/9# copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia
* http://knol.google.com/k/meir-shraga/israel/1p4n1ii9gkg1v/5# copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
* http://knol.google.com/k/maxime-seligman/france/32qv6k5e4j8yx/4# copy of http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France
I found also 10 more and i'm quite sure this is not an exhaustive list. The problem is that for each article content, the GFDL licence is replace by a CC-3.0 licence with only one author: the guy who made the copy-paste (and not those who wrote the article).
Guérin Nicolas
Interesting, that there's one by Nathan Awrich. Nathan, you're on foundation-l right? Surely you'd know better than that? You wrote 22 knols, most if not all of which are copies of the relevant Wikipedia articles....why?
-Dan
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Nicolas Guérin nguerin.zurich@gmail.comwrote:
After a fast research (about 20 minutes) on Knol, i found several copies from Wikipedia's articles:
of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
- another http://knol.google.com/k/-/wikipedia/3lr953e1lumvz/8# copy of
the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol
http://knol.google.com/k/benjamin-katlama/new-york-city/34hdx7ks0jha3/23#cop... of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City
http://knol.google.com/k/seth-rivard/barack-hussein-obama/3snb2eak10854/9#co... of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Hussein_Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France
I found also 10 more and i'm quite sure this is not an exhaustive list. The problem is that for each article content, the GFDL licence is replace by a CC-3.0 licence with only one author: the guy who made the copy-paste (and not those who wrote the article).
Guérin Nicolas
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yup, there's a stack of knols "written" by me that are actually copies of Wikipedia articles. On any given search on Knol, most of the results are crap or Wikipedia articles. Its an interesting experiment, I think. All Knols under my name (now) include the GFDL notice at the bottom, and they have always contained the link to the Wikipedia revision in the summary - more than most reusers do. The issue of how CC-BY is not compatible with GFDL is a little opaque, to me, but the intent seems to be pretty close to the same. Still, as I said, everything is posted with the appropriate license. The "attribution" is a little limited, but providing the revision link makes it possible to determine who wrote what.
As far as the question of should Wikimedia content be copied over to Google Knol - I guess I don't understand how doing it negatively impacts the greater goals of the WMF. It just increases the exposure of good information, putting it in more places, etc. There are some issues of maintenance, of accuracy in an article that won't be updated frequently if at all, etc. - but no different than with anyone else who reuses our content.
The only downside to Knol for Wikimedia is if it draws away contributors and donors - I don't think it will, because generally speaking I expect the noise, low quality and lack of uniformity of organization/style/etc. to prevent much of our reader traffic moving there permanently. If we keep our donors and editors, then republishing material on Knol fits just fine with the mission of spreading free information.
Nathan
P.S.: The protest ratings are pretty comical.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:00 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting, that there's one by Nathan Awrich. Nathan, you're on foundation-l right? Surely you'd know better than that? You wrote 22 knols, most if not all of which are copies of the relevant Wikipedia articles....why?
-Dan
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Nicolas Guérin <nguerin.zurich@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The issue of how CC-BY is not compatible with GFDL is a little opaque, to me
The GFDL does not allow relicensing under CC-BY (unless you wrote the text entirely yourself). Trying to do so is a copyright violation on your part.
Transparent enough now?
Magnus
P.S.: Yes, the two licenses are similar in spirit. Just not in legalese.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The issue of how CC-BY is not compatible with GFDL is a little opaque, to me
The GFDL does not allow relicensing under CC-BY (unless you wrote the text entirely yourself). Trying to do so is a copyright violation on your part.
Transparent enough now? P.S.: Yes, the two licenses are similar in spirit. Just not in legalese.
CC-By isn't even all that similar in spirit. GFDL is copyleft.
You're allowed to take CC-By works, enhance them, then release them under more restrictive terms. This can be useful for some things (and certainly useful to the origination doing the locking up ;) ), but copyleft licenses prohibit that activity, with the expectation that doing so will expand the pool of freely licensed works.
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
2008/7/28 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
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
No read the Terms of service "8. License to Google." is not compatible with the GFDL. Same reason you can't upload GFDL content to youtube.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:06 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No read the Terms of service "8. License to Google." is not compatible with the GFDL. Same reason you can't upload GFDL content to youtube.
*Same reason you can't legally upload GFDL or CC-By-Sa content for which you are not the copyright holder to youtube.
;)
(for the benefit of those who are not Geni) This is not some GFDL-ism: Quite a few of these web 2.0 businesses require special rights for themselves (usually to further their lock-in against competition) which you do not have the right to release unless you're the copyright holder.
No read the Terms of service "8. License to Google." is not compatible with the GFDL. Same reason you can't upload GFDL content to youtube.
That's the part you're never going to be able to get around however much legalese you through around.
Nathan, you need to remove the content immeadiately.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
No read the Terms of service "8. License to Google." is not compatible with the GFDL. Same reason you can't upload GFDL content to youtube.
That's the part you're never going to be able to get around however much legalese you through around.
Nathan, you need to remove the content immeadiately.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Amazing how the Knol, hailed as a competitor to Wikipedia, has so quickly began stealing content from Wikipedia's contributors, faking the license terms, and essentially plagiarizing en masse.
Amazing how the Knol, hailed as a competitor to Wikipedia, has so quickly began stealing content from Wikipedia's contributors, faking the license terms, and essentially plagiarizing en masse.
To be fair, contributors to Knol have done that, not Knol itself. Google have not done anything to encourage this kind of copyright violation, as far as I know (they haven't have a chance to do anything to stop it, but presumably will soon).
2008/7/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Amazing how the Knol, hailed as a competitor to Wikipedia, has so quickly began stealing content from Wikipedia's contributors, faking the license terms, and essentially plagiarizing en masse.
To be fair, contributors to Knol have done that, not Knol itself. Google have not done anything to encourage this kind of copyright violation, as far as I know (they haven't have a chance to do anything to stop it, but presumably will soon).
Youtube suggests not. Outside wikipedia "web 2.0" doesn't care about copyright
It happens with pretty much anywhere which is open to public text addition. Scribd for example. For the most part we don't notice because google search and yahoo have pretty strong duplicate content penalties in their search programs (otherwise all you would see is wikipedia mirrors in many search results). for the moment cuil.com doesn't appear to do so to the same extent.
How exactly this will impact depends to a large degree on how google applies it's duplicate content penalty to knol.
Hoi, It is not Knol who is "stealing" from Wikipedia contributors. It is people who upload to Knol who do this.. Once people are aware that you can not copy content from Wikipedia to Knol, you may find that the tables are turned because you CAN copy content to Wikipedia...
Please do not paint Knol in a negative light, it does not deserve this. Again, people who copy to Knol are wrong, that is no problem of the license selected for this project, Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
No read the Terms of service "8. License to Google." is not compatible with the GFDL. Same reason you can't upload GFDL content to youtube.
That's the part you're never going to be able to get around however much legalese you through around.
Nathan, you need to remove the content immeadiately.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Amazing how the Knol, hailed as a competitor to Wikipedia, has so quickly began stealing content from Wikipedia's contributors, faking the license terms, and essentially plagiarizing en masse.
-- DCollins/ST47 Administrator, en.wikipedia.org _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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
Before its pointed out by someone else - TOS 5 says Google takes no "ownership or control" while TOS 8 requires you to grant them a license to reuse the content, so that isn't an obvious textual conflict.
What are the practical repercussions, if any, of granting that particular license to Google? It looks like it might be a violation of the GFDL, but beyond the technical violation what undesirable outcomes occur for the content and its creators?
Nathan
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
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
2008/7/28 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Before its pointed out by someone else - TOS 5 says Google takes no "ownership or control" while TOS 8 requires you to grant them a license to reuse the content, so that isn't an obvious textual conflict.
What are the practical repercussions, if any, of granting that particular license to Google? It looks like it might be a violation of the GFDL, but beyond the technical violation what undesirable outcomes occur for the content and its creators?
It allows Google to use the content without following the restrictions imposed by GFDL. The only one that's likely to be a serious issue is that Google doesn't have to freely license derivative content.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:49 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.*
[snip]
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
[snip]
You've granted them an expansive license (which you don't actually have the right to grant for most freely licensed content found elsewhere) and they disclaim ownership. License != ownership, so it's not a conflict .. even if does seem somewhat confusing.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:49 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.*
[snip]
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
[snip]
You've granted them an expansive license (which you don't actually have the right to grant for most freely licensed content found elsewhere) and they disclaim ownership. License != ownership, so it's not a conflict .. even if does seem somewhat confusing.
But that's nonsense. You obviously haven't granted Google such a license if you don't have a right to do so. If anything you've broken Google's Terms of Service, not the GFDL.
Greg, pick an article which you feel you've made a significant contribution to. I'll upload it to Knol, following the terms of the GFDL, and you can issue a takedown notice. Then I'll issue a putback notice, you can sue me, and we'll finally have a GFDL test case.
Anthony
2008/7/28 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
But that's nonsense. You obviously haven't granted Google such a license if you don't have a right to do so. If anything you've broken Google's Terms of Service, not the GFDL.
Greg, pick an article which you feel you've made a significant contribution to. I'll upload it to Knol, following the terms of the GFDL, and you can issue a takedown notice. Then I'll issue a putback notice, you can sue me, and we'll finally have a GFDL test case.
The validity of the GFDL isn't relevant to the case. If the GFDL is valid you lose for failing to follow it's terms. If the GFDL is not valid you lose under straightforward copyright. No actual reason for the court to consider which of these is the case.
But that's nonsense. You obviously haven't granted Google such a license if you don't have a right to do so. If anything you've broken Google's Terms of Service, not the GFDL.
That's a good point. It's Google that's potentially violating the GFDL (if they used their rights under the terms of service), the contributor is just in breach of contract with Google.
2008/7/28 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
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?
You hold all the rights but license them to google. Section 8 is partly allowing Knol to publish without worrying about copyright but also allowing google to do whatever they like with the content without having to worry about copyright (screenshots in ads incorporating into google maps or some future social networking stuff whatever).
It's a fairly standard clause and not really a problem except that it creates issues if you wish to upload third party that is under a copyleft license. There are a couple of ways google could get around the problem but they are not likely to consider it enough of an issue to do anything about it.
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
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
Amazing how the Knol, hailed as a competitor to Wikipedia, has so quickly began stealing content from Wikipedia's contributors, faking the license terms, and essentially plagiarizing en masse.
Wikipedia, Meet "Web 2.0", "Web 2.0" meet Wikipedia. Consider the amount of effort it would take to stopper the constant fountain of plagiarism and illicit copies (well meaning and evil alike) and then you'll understand Viacom's postion in Viacom v Youtube.
For whatever its worth I smacked the flag inappropriate content button on a bunch of the earliest (and worse) Wikipedia ripoffs and explained the problems. None of those have yet been removed.
I didn't go as far as filing a DMCA takedown as none of the earliest copies were my works, though some of the subsequent ones have been... but also because of Google's very NPOV phrased threat that your takedown would be listed at chilling effects and the idiotic PR debacle that would no doubt result. Kudos to them for providing DMCA takedown instructions which should result in legally valid takedown requests though...
If you're a substantial contributor to any of the copied articles and want to issue a takedown request I'd be glad to give you a hand in making sure your request is both properly formed, and less likely to create a storm of stupidity should it show up on chilling effects.
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 nawrich@gmail.com:
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 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
All Rights reserved is more restrictive then the GFDL and therefore not allowed to relisence with if I am informed correctly.
The phrase "All Rights Reserved" is fairly meaningless nowadays. Obviously you can claim "all rights reserved" and still issue licenses, people do it all the time (just usually not such broad licenses to such broad groups of people).
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 philippebeaudette@gmail.com
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 nawrich@gmail.com:
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 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Oh, I did awhile ago. It doesn't look totally cut and dry, but until it gets a little clearer for me they are down.
Nathan
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Philippe Beaudette < philippebeaudette@gmail.com> 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 philippebeaudette@gmail.com
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 nawrich@gmail.com:
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 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
That was smart. Thanks. :-)
_____________________ Philippe Beaudette Tulsa, OK philippebeaudette@gmail.com
On Jul 28, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
Oh, I did awhile ago. It doesn't look totally cut and dry, but until it gets a little clearer for me they are down.
Nathan
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Philippe Beaudette < philippebeaudette@gmail.com> 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 philippebeaudette@gmail.com
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 nawrich@gmail.com:
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 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Knol is basically a way for people to cut and paste and make ad money with no effort.
I don't know of any good solutions, or if we even need any solutions. If we start harping on Knol then people will think we are "the man" and too uptight. "Knowledge should be free, right?"
This is a battle that I'm not sure anyone could, or should win.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Philippe Beaudette < philippebeaudette@gmail.com> wrote:
That was smart. Thanks. :-)
Philippe Beaudette Tulsa, OK philippebeaudette@gmail.com
On Jul 28, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
Oh, I did awhile ago. It doesn't look totally cut and dry, but until it gets a little clearer for me they are down.
Nathan
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Philippe Beaudette < philippebeaudette@gmail.com> 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 philippebeaudette@gmail.com
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 nawrich@gmail.com:
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 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/7/29 mboverload mboverloadlister@gmail.com:
Knol is basically a way for people to cut and paste and make ad money with no effort. I don't know of any good solutions, or if we even need any solutions. If we start harping on Knol then people will think we are "the man" and too uptight. "Knowledge should be free, right?"
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!
- d.
2008/7/29 mboverload mboverloadlister@gmail.com:
Knol is basically a way for people to cut and paste and make ad money with no effort.
Made for adsense sites are nothing new. Most of our mirrors are basicaly made for well various forms of advertising sites.
I don't know of any good solutions, or if we even need any solutions.
Largely depends if google applies a duplicate content penalty to such ah "Knols". If they do well I doubt knol internal traffic will be enough to make them them worthwhile.
If we start harping on Knol then people will think we are "the man" and too uptight. "Knowledge should be free, right?"
Depends how we do it. You would probably make the argument along the lines that "all we ever asked for was credit" and "the work was free keep it so" (okay slightly different phrasing there might be an idea).
This is a battle that I'm not sure anyone could, or should win.
It could be won yes. The problem is that we only need one person to start the battle the wrong way and things get messy. That is why it might be in our interests to get out a carefully worded statement so that when someone does do something unfortunate it is seen as old news.
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 < philippebeaudette@gmail.com> 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 philippebeaudette@gmail.com
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 nawrich@gmail.com:
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 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The issue of how CC-BY is not compatible with GFDL is a little opaque, to me
The GFDL does not allow relicensing under CC-BY (unless you wrote the text entirely yourself). Trying to do so is a copyright violation on your part.
Transparent enough now?
Magnus
P.S.: Yes, the two licenses are similar in spirit. Just not in legalese.
As Magnus said, they are not compatible. In the future, GFDL may be compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0, but will never be compatible with vanilla CC-BY.
So in that sense, I would even amend what Magnus said with stronger terms -- they are not even the same in spirit.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Nicolas Guérin nguerin.zurich@gmail.com wrote:
I found also 10 more and i'm quite sure this is not an exhaustive list. The problem is that for each article content, the GFDL licence is replace by a CC-3.0 licence with only one author: the guy who made the copy-paste (and not those who wrote the article).
I asked a friend at google to forward it to the Knol people.
Mathias
Unfortunately, this list is much longer... For example, the *fifteen*articles form that person on Knol ( http://knol.google.com/k/seth-rivard/seth-rivard/3snb2eak10854/1# ) are copies from the articles on en.wp
Guérin Nicolas
2008/7/28 Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Nicolas Guérin nguerin.zurich@gmail.com wrote:
I found also 10 more and i'm quite sure this is not an exhaustive list.
The
problem is that for each article content, the GFDL licence is replace by
a
CC-3.0 licence with only one author: the guy who made the copy-paste (and not those who wrote the article).
I asked a friend at google to forward it to the Knol people.
Mathias
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
+ *Ten* articles from that guy ( http://knol.google.com/k/knol/system/knol/pages/Search?nodeId=32qv6k5e4j8yx....) which are copies of articles on fr.wp
For the moment, i found approximatively 50 articles (long and short) which are copied from wikipedia and paste on knol under the licence CC-3.0
Guérin Nicolas
2008/7/28 Nicolas Guérin nguerin.zurich@gmail.com
Unfortunately, this list is much longer... For example, the *fifteen*articles form that person on Knol ( http://knol.google.com/k/seth-rivard/seth-rivard/3snb2eak10854/1# ) are copies from the articles on en.wp
Guérin Nicolas2008/7/28 Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Nicolas Guérin
nguerin.zurich@gmail.com wrote:
I found also 10 more and i'm quite sure this is not an exhaustive list.
The
problem is that for each article content, the GFDL licence is replace by
a
CC-3.0 licence with only one author: the guy who made the copy-paste
(and
not those who wrote the article).
I asked a friend at google to forward it to the Knol people.
Mathias
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Nicolas Guérin nguerin.zurich@gmail.com wrote:
After a fast research (about 20 minutes) on Knol, i found several copies from Wikipedia's articles:
There are heaps of these already. On some knols you can see a "similar content on the web" pane on the right which is a good giveaway that it was copied; this knol is apparently a 72% match to the Wikipedia article it was copied from:
http://knol.google.com/k/rui-moura/knol/2q6bmd4rdpda7/2#
Another giveaway is edit links appearing throughout the text.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org