[Foundation-l] Copies of Wikipedia's articles found on Knol

Fri Aug 1 05:02:37 UTC 2008

David Goodman writes:

> The only thing we have any real reason to insist on for Wikipedia
> content is attribution, and the only attribution that should be
> necessary is attribution to Wikipedia with a link to where exactly it
> was taken.

And yet Knol is not yet requiring this of articles taken from  
Wikipedia and transplanted without editing into Knol.

>  There is a real point in advocating copyleft to change the world to
> the use of free content; I fully understand the desire to change the
> world to the merits of "libre" publishing.  But maintaining it in
> Wikipedia is  pointy--wp is there as an encyclopedia to be used, and
> the very thought that one could not take text and put it wherever you
> please is completely opposite to the spirit of contribution.

This is a perfectly respectable comment, but strong copyleft  
provisions in existing licenses require that subsequent duplication or  
derivative works express the strong copyleft principle. I think we all  
agree that GFDL is strong copyleft, that Wikipedia content is GFDL- 
licensed, so that subsequent use of the content by Knol or anyone else  
either needs to follow a strong copyleft license or else be lawful  
under the exceptions provided by copyright law.

> NYBrad show the right way a good law
> yer approaches things: decide what
> we want to do, and find a legal way of doing it.

A good constitutional lawyer necessarily recognizes that he or she is  
bound by overarching principles that may not serve one's client's  
interests, or even one's own interests.

We may wish for things to be different, but we must honor the promises  
we have made.

--Mike