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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l