Mailing List Archive

> Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:32:38 +0200
> From: Yorian <webmaster@compumania.nl>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Using content from Wikipedia
>
> Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:
>
> I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to use
> content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
> website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia as a
> source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is it okay
> to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
> Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very clear
> on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't answer
> this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I can't afford
> a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!
>
> Yorian
>

Interesting question. The GFDL is about documents and therefor only mentions
documents. It doesn't say anything about websites. The two applying sections
in the GFDL are:
----
You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
Version filling the role of the Document.

A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
modifications and/or translated into another language.
----
The problem is, what is a "work" in terms of internet websites? Is a whole
website a "work"? Or is a single page a "work"? This could for example be
the case if every single page can again be edited by different people...
which would probably make it a single "work" again.
So, if you say a Website is a "work", than it would be the modified version
and therefor any text on the website must be under the terms of the GFDL. If
a single page is a "work", than only this page has to be put under the terms
of the GFDL again. Hard to tell... You would be on the secure side if you
put everything under the GFDL. It seems to me, the GFDL is not yet internet
ready ;) You can of course take a chance and if you get rich with your
website and the Wikimedia Foundation sues you, you can afford a lawer who
will maybe win the case for you ;) Its realy hard to tell because those free
software and free document licenses are rarely taken to court and therefor
only few official legal interpretations for them exist.

greetings,
Markus

PS: I am no lawer and all I'm saying can be just crap anyway ;) Just to
disclaim any liability ;)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/7/06, Markus Sz <echalone@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:32:38 +0200
> > From: Yorian <webmaster@compumania.nl>
> > Subject: [Foundation-l] Using content from Wikipedia
> >
> > Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:
> >
> > I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to use
> > content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
> > website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia as a
> > source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is it okay
> > to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
> > Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very clear
> > on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't answer
> > this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I can't afford
> > a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Yorian
> >
>
> Interesting question. The GFDL is about documents and therefor only mentions
> documents. It doesn't say anything about websites. The two applying sections
> in the GFDL are:
> ----
> You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
> the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
> the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
> Version filling the role of the Document.
>
> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
> Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
> modifications and/or translated into another language.
> ----
> The problem is, what is a "work" in terms of internet websites? Is a whole
> website a "work"? Or is a single page a "work"? This could for example be
> the case if every single page can again be edited by different people...
> which would probably make it a single "work" again.
> So, if you say a Website is a "work", than it would be the modified version
> and therefor any text on the website must be under the terms of the GFDL. If
> a single page is a "work", than only this page has to be put under the terms
> of the GFDL again. Hard to tell... You would be on the secure side if you
> put everything under the GFDL. It seems to me, the GFDL is not yet internet
> ready ;) You can of course take a chance and if you get rich with your
> website and the Wikimedia Foundation sues you, you can afford a lawer who
> will maybe win the case for you ;) Its realy hard to tell because those free
> software and free document licenses are rarely taken to court and therefor
> only few official legal interpretations for them exist.
>
> greetings,
> Markus
>
> PS: I am no lawer and all I'm saying can be just crap anyway ;) Just to
> disclaim any liability ;)

I am also not a lawyer, but I think this GFDL section is what would apply:
-----
7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright
resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights
of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not
apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves
derivative works of the Document.

If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these
copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one half of
the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on
covers that bracket the Document within the aggregate, or the
electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in electronic form.
Otherwise they must appear on printed covers that bracket the whole
aggregate.
-----

If I were going to re-use WP content in a commercial website, what I
would do is use an unmodified version of the WP GFDL content in a
separate frame within a larger page. That should help keep the GFDL
stuff 'separate' while including it.

But you really should talk to a lawyer, if this is a moneymaking idea.
Getting this wrong could be catastrophic.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Yorian wrote:
> Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:
>
> I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to
> use content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
> website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia
> as a source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is
> it okay to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
> Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very
> clear on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't
> answer this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I
> can't afford a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACopyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations

> If you want to use Wikipedia materials in your own books/articles/web
> sites or other publications, you can do so, but you have to follow
> the GFDL. If you are simply duplicating the Wikipedia article, you
> must follow section two of the GFDL on verbatim copying, as discussed
> at Wikipedia:Verbatim copying.
>
> If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content,
> this entails the following:
>
> * your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL,
> * you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B),
> and
> * you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material
> (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikipedia article is any
> of a number of formats available from us, including the wiki text,
> the html web pages, xml feed, etc.)
>
> You may be able to partially fulfill the latter two obligations by
> providing a conspicuous direct link back to the Wikipedia article
> hosted on this website. You also need to provide access to a
> transparent copy of the new text. However, please note that the
> Wikimedia Foundation makes no guarantee to retain authorship
> information and a transparent copy of articles. Therefore, you are
> encouraged to provide this authorship information and a transparent
> copy with your derived works.

Hope that helps,
--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP