2008/6/13 Amir Michail <amichail(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hi,
I have some GFDL questions with respect to using Wikipedia content in
chatbotgame.com. This is a game that rewards players for contributing
effective chat rules.
To encourage more people to chat and play, I'm thinking of adding chat
rules extracted automatically from Wikipedia content.
So I have some questions:
If you want actual legal advice you will need a lawyer.
(1) The GFDL license makes reference to several
concepts that seem to
have no relevance to Wikipedia; namely, "secondary section",
"invariant section", "cover section", and "title page". Is
this
correct? Presumably, I can just ignore those parts of the license?
wikipedia comes with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts,
and with no Back-Cover Texts. It may or may not have everything else
depending on how you read the license.
(2) Adding chat rules obtained from Wikipedia content
will likely
result in many players adding rules that are derived from Wikipedia
content (e.g., you might copy a chatbot response that comes from
Wikipedia into your rule). And so it seems like player chat rules
would also need to be under the GFDL. Is that correct?
Depends for short comments they might fall under fair use otherwise yes.
(3) But if player rules are under the GFDL, would I
need to make all
such rules available?
If they were in use probably otherwise probably not.
What if a player deletes a rule? Must the
deleted rule still be available as part of an xml dump say to satisfy
the GFDL?
It is generally thought not.
(4) If a player modifies a rule, must the previous
version be made
available as part of an xml dump?
It is generally thought not.
(5) What constitutes a derivative work?
Under US law?
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
"derivative work".
Rules in this game are
scored, so does the score count as part of a derivative work or can it
be omitted in an xml dump?
It probably isn't a derivative work.
Clearly, players would like to retain a
competitive advantage even if their rules are under the GFDL and
hiding rule scores from others would help.
It's hard to figure out what the copyright status of the scores would
actually be but probably not GFDL.
(6) Is an xml dump of chat rules at regular intervals
or on request
enough to satisfy the GFDL?
I'm not actually sure it's relevant to GFDL compliance. The GFDL can't
force you to distribute something. So as long as you don't distribute
the rules only the stuff generated by them there is no reason under
the GFDL to release them.
Your real problem is GFDL text in answers which you/your rule writers
are distributing. To get within the spirit of the GFDL you would need
to provide a link crediting the authors of each but of GFDL text and a
copy of the GFDL.
You might be better starting with wikinews which is under the creative
commons Attribution 2.5 license.
--
geni