Hello,
The genesis of the legal question is the thread concerning
using ISO Topic Map precepts not "SNAKs". Surely you know a number of
individuals on this forum feel that our challenge at that time was not
thoughtfully engaged. Instead we received replies focused on costs
associated with ISO standards, insisting that pirate ethics were
mandated by the WMF, to swat away our basic questions. For instance,
Nadja conflated our asking about ISO Topic Maps as a base design
standard with incorporating ALL ISO STANDARDS EVER PUBLISHED into the
wikidata database.
Obviously I subsequently withdrew from engagement
with Wikidata when the design team failed to seriously engage in the
challenge at the time about a distinct technical orientation towards
transclusion instead of (imho archaic non-wiki needlessly complex)
client/server apis which, still to this day, I obviously consider a flaw
of the wikidata design.
That said, the legal questions are likely
trivial; they were and are to me merely a prop for more important, but
now dead and past, issues. Wikidata has committed to specific
implementations; in the interests of community I support those while
hoping that (a) SMW doesn't wither and then die (b) individual WPs can
somehow participate uniquely in the semantic web (c) individual WPs
widely adopt what Wikidata has wrought. I do know (and am developing) an
SMW-based "Topic Maps" extension is feasible and practicable -- the
benefits of which are too obvious to ignore to those who care.
party
on - john
On 04.09.2012 01:42, Nadja Kutz wrote:
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