Mailing List Archive

Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol
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#copy
of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City

* http://knol.google.com/k/seth-rivard/barack-hussein-obama/3snb2eak10854/9#copy
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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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:

> 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#copy
> of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City
>
> *
> http://knol.google.com/k/seth-rivard/barack-hussein-obama/3snb2eak10854/9#copy
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Dan Rosenthal
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
+ *Ten* articles from that guy (
http://knol.google.com/k/knol/system/knol/pages/Search?nodeId=32qv6k5e4j8yx.0#)
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 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
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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:
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
> 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
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
> 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).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol [ In reply to ]
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
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2 3 4  View All