Nadja,
John's question was:
"So, the consequent question I asked then was, if you're not going to
use any (ISO or national) standard then how can you assure the WP
community that Wikidata is not violating someone's copyright(s)?"
My answer to that question was that we are using standards. And that
those standards have, in the process of their creation, a policy that
deals with issues of intellectual property. The link I gave you
details the policy for W3C standards, which we are using.
I am sorry that I expressed myself unclear, and I hope this now
answers your question about how it answers John's previous question.
Cheers,
Denny
2012/9/4 Nadja Kutz <nadja(a)daytar.de>de>:
John McClure wrote:
"I don't think you're hearing the question. A reply y'all gave on the
issue
was that any standard used by
Wikidata needed to be 100% open-source -- no money required as in free. Even
though what is being charged by
ISO to support its business model is a PITTANCE in my humble opinion... So,
the consequent question I asked
then was, if you're not going to use any (ISO or national) standard then how
can you assure the WP community
that Wikidata is not violating someone's copyright(s)?"
Hello Lydia,
Unfortunately I have to agree with John that you really do not seem to hear
the question because that is also
what I read as your reply. Or was there another reply which I missed
somewhere in this hard-to-browse-and-search newsgroup?
Thus please explain a bit more what you mean exactly by "Unless something
changed on the freedom status of the documents needed nothing changed since
we discussed this last."
I do not agree with John that the ISOs business model is a pittance though.
That is as I linked to in this thread:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/618
the ISO sells their items seperately and alone e.g. the basic description of
Iso inch screw threads:
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnu…
costs 80 CHF
so this could add up rather quickly to quite an amount of money.
I thus asked
(
here:http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576) wether one
shouldnt ask for packages or at least for the use of the ISO classification
scheme. I dont know how much copyright there is on classification schemes in
general though. (I could imagine that this is a juridicial problem since big
parts of a classification scheme
are often trivial and unavoidable, like a hammer is a tool and it would make
no sense to give up this
classification just because there was eventually some crazy copyright
protection...however may be
lawyers do now think that a hammer could also equally well be classified as
wardrobe item (given what one sees
sometimes in jurisdiction I wouldnt wonder anymore))
Regarding the comment by Denny Vandrecic
"Because we ARE using standards like RDF or OWL (or HTML or URIs) which
are W3C and IETF standards, and which in turn have a well documented
policy regarding patents and copyrights, see e.g.
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/> for W3C
standards.
I hope that answers that question."
By looking at this page I can't really see why this is an answer to the
questions, could you please
explain this a bit more?
thanks nad
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 |
http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.