copying from Wikipedia is not a Knol TOS violation, is it?

[Bennett Haselton]

In February I wrote an article at
http://slashdot.org/articles/08/02/15/177258.shtml
suggesting that if Knol were launched and if they allowed writers to
copy content from Wikipedia, that there would be a huge influx of
users doing this, and arguing that this would actually be a good
thing.

Set aside the issue of whether it's a good thing or not. To be clear,
the current Knol Terms and Conditions do *not* prohibit users from
doing this, right?

The content policy at:
http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/si57lahl1w25/13#
only says that users may not "violate copyright". Wikipedia allows
their content to be copied, so this is not a copyright violation, and
hence not a violation of the content policy.

[Andreas Kemper]

Hello Bennett Haselton

I think you have to make a difference. The author of a wikipedia-
article is allowed to copy the article. But if he is not the author he
needs the permission of the authors to copy the article. If he is a
author but not the only one he needs also the permission of the other
authors.

Best regards
Andreas Kemper

[Bennett Haselton]

I think it's more complicated than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks
says: "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies
to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no
other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." You can do
that much with Wikipedia articles, WITHOUT asking the authors for
permission.

However, I found a section of
http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/si57lahl1w25/12#
which says: "Please also be aware that the GNU Free Documentation
License (GFDL) is not
currently deemed compatible with Creative Commons licenses, and that
content licensed
under GFDL terms therefore may not be available for reuse under a
Creative Commons or
other non-GFDL license."

So let's say you just copy content from Wikipedia to make a Knol
article, and instead of marking it as available under a Creative
Commons license, you just include text in your Knol article that links
to the GDFL, granting all of your readers all of the rights that were
granted to you under the GDFL in the first place. That would comply
with the GDFL -- and, since you're not using anyone else's copyrighted
material in violation of the terms they've set, it would mean you're
complying with Knol's Content Policy and Terms Of Service as well.
Wouldn't it?

-Bennett

On Aug 2, 3:54 pm, Andreas Kemper

[Paulista]

You cannot use GFDL article.

See at: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/si57lahl1w25/12#

" 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."

GFDL does not allow Google to do that.


On 2 ago, 20:24, Bennett Haselton <benn...@peacefire.org> wrote:
> I think it's more complicated than that.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks

> says: "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
> commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
> copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies
> to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no
> other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." You can do
> that much with Wikipedia articles, WITHOUT asking the authors for
> permission.
>

> However, I found a section ofhttp://knol.google.com/k/-/-/si57lahl1w25/12#

> > Andreas Kemper- Ocultar texto entre aspas -
>
> - Mostrar texto entre aspas -

[Bennett Haselton]

But what part of the GDFL doesn't allow this? The GDFL says

"You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies
to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no
other conditions whatsoever to those of this License."

If you submit GDFL content to Knol, you're granting Google the right
to display and re-transmit it as long as the license remains displayed
with the content. GDFL grants you those rights, and you're passing
them on to Google by giving them the content to display. What part is
incompatible?

-Bennett

> > - Mostrar texto entre aspas -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Profrap]

The trouble is that GFDL does not allow any additional restrictions;
licensing to Google under cc-by-sa nc in effect creates restrictions
because it limits commercial use. From the GFDL license text: "The
GFDL requires the ability to "copy and distribute the Document in any
medium, either commercially or noncommercially" and therefore is
incompatible with material that excludes commercial re-use."

[WebRanger]

Even if copying from Wikipedia doesn't violate anyone's terms - Google
or Wikipedia - I hope Goole discourages it. Doesn't that sort of
defeat the entire purpose of Google/Knol?

I certainly don't object to people using Wikipedia as a reference and
even quoting heavily from it - as long as they ackowledge Wikipedia as
a major reference. But simple copy-and-paste jobs discredit Knol and
are a disservice to people looking for information, in my opinion.

Of course, Google could make a lot of money by quickly converting a
million Wikipedia articles to knols, then monetizing them. But I
really don't think that's necessary. I predict that Knol will grow
rapidly enough.

[Bennett Haselton]

Right, so you couldn't copy content from Wikipedia and publish it with
a Creative Commons license.

What I'm talking about doing, is publishing it in Knol but *not* under
a Creative Commons license, and including the GFDL in the content that
you copy. http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/si57lahl1w25/12# says:

'An Owner may select either an “all rights reserved” model of
traditional copyright, or you may choose the “some rights reserved”
model, by which you agree to submit, post, publish, and display your
knol through the Service under a Creative Commons license as presented
in the Administrative Settings interface.'

So, you copy content from Wikipedia and publish it in Knol under the
"all rights reserved" model, and then you include the text of the GFDL
in your content. "But hold on," someone is saying, "you can't say
'all rights reserved' because that violates the GFDL, which doesn't
allow you to place additional restrictions on the content." However,
I'm arguing that if you take the "all rights reserved" option when
publishing the Knol, and then include the GFDL in your content, you
are then GIVING all of those rights to the readers of the content, and
hence complying with the GFDL. (In other words, "all rights reserved"
does not mean that you are swearing never to grant re-use rights to
anybody, ever. It means you are choosing which rights to grant to
people. And by including the GFDL in your content, you are granting
all the rights to your readers that you are required to grant under
the GFDL, and hence complying with the GFDL.)

If someone thinks this is wrong, then how exactly would you be
violating the GFDL if you republish GFDL content on Knol as long as
the GFDL is included with it?

-Bennett

[Profrap]

I believe there is a legal doctrine which applies to copyright cases
among others -- you can't un-grant something already granted; anything
released under the GFDL is released and cannot be copyrighted or re-
released under a more restrictive license -- ever. Now it's true that
you could a) copy a Wikipedia entry to Knol, including its GFDL
license but no other; this would not alter the terms and would be
acceptable. Or, in an article you wrote yourself, and which you are
publishing as "all rights reserved," quote with source and license
some brief passages from GFDL-licensed sources such as the Wikipedia.
If the quotes were substantial, though, this could make your entry a
derivative work which would mean you could not use GFDL material
unless your whole article were also GFDL-licensed. All of which are
reasons why cc-by-sa and cc-by-sa-nc are far far better licenses that
GFDL (when I was an editor at the Citizendium project, this was the
conclusion of a very long and involved debate). Of course, it should
be borne in mind that almost none of these licenses have ever actually
been tested in actual court cases -- but it looks to me as though
Knol, by tagging similar content, is at the least flagging WP imports,
and probably reserves the right to decide later to downgrade,
depracate, or delete such entries. If Knol wants to be a fork of the
Wikipedia, it could do so today -- but it would have to impose the GNU
license on all such materials.

[Paulista]

GFDL would obligate Google to maintain this license in any derivative
work made. Google didn't say that would do that at "Knol Terms of
Service".

[Bennett Haselton]

This seems to assume that if you reproduce the article but take out
the GDFL license, that counts as creating a "derivative work". Sort
of like reproducing a song's lyrics but taking out the second verse
because you didn't like it. (And hence, we can't use GDFL content
because we can't grant Google the right to create derivative works
that take the license out, etc.)

However, I think that modifying an article and altering the terms of
the license would go beyond creating a "derivative work". It's taking
a statement from the author which forms a contract with the user, and
altering that statement. For example, suppose I publish a book and
release it under CC, and in one chapter of the book I offer $1,000 to
anyone who can find the prime factors of some number. Even though
I've published the book under terms allowing people to create
"derivative works", someone wouldn't be able to change the text to say
that I was offering $1,000,000 to anyone who can find the prime
factors, while leaving my name signed to the offer.

Hence it would seem logical that if I could include GFDL content in
Knol along with the GFDL license, and allow Google to create
"derivative works", as long as derivative works were not deemed to
include copies that excised the GFDL license from the text.

Of course as Profrap says, neither argument has ever been tested in
court, and even if we all agreed 100% on the logical interpretation of
how to apply the GFDL, a judge might read it the other way. Or more
to the point in the short term, Google might decide by fiat not to
allow content copied from Wikipedia, even if one could make a logical
argument that it's allowed under their TOS.

-Bennett

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Wikigoose]

The trouble is that including the GFDL would contradict the license
displayed in the upper right corner. If Knol permitted Creative
Commons-Attribution-ShareAlike, then it would be okay; CC-BY-SA 3.0
and GFDL are compatible licenses. You'd still need to include a list
of authors of the copied material (to satisfy "attribution"), which
could come in the form of a link back to the Wikipedia article, where
people can view the contribution history.

[Bennett Haselton]

But what I'm saying is, if you copy from Wikipedia to Knol, don't pick
a CC license for your knol, pick an "all rights reserved" license.
Then in the content of the article, include the text of the GFDL, thus
*giving* the reader all the rights that you're required to give them
under the GFDL. "All rights reserved" still means you're allowed to
*give* people rights when you choose, and if you give the reader all
the rights granted to them in the GFDL, then you've complied with the
GFDL yourself, haven't you?

-Bennett

[girino]

Is that compliant with google's term of services? I mean, you grant
google some rights just by posting things on knol. Are those rights
GDFL compatible?

And last, can you claim "all rights reserved", even relicensing it
under GDFL, for work you are not the author?