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?csnum...
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
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@daytar.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?csnum...
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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Nadja replied but the mailman decided to bounce the message. I'm investigating... Here's Nadja's message:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "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." Hello Denny Vrandecic I hope you have a lawyer who checks this, on a first 1 min glance at this page it doesnt look to me obvious that a collision (like when creating a classification scheme as described in my previous email and as John asked) is excluded, it looks more as the regulations mostly cover the issue about how you do your own licensing.
So sorry I still don't see this question answered. May be it helps if you could tell me exactly which paragraph in the regulations you think answers the above question. Moreover I had the question about wether you would try to go into negotiations with the ISO and/or find a sponsor if necessary.
greetings nad -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers Lydia
Nadja wrote:
Hello Denny Vrandecic I hope you have a lawyer who checks this, on a first 1 min glance at this page it doesnt look to me obvious that a collision (like when creating a classification scheme as described in my previous email and as John asked) is excluded, it looks more as the regulations mostly cover the issue about how you do your own licensing.
So sorry I still don't see this question answered. May be it helps if you could tell me exactly which paragraph in the regulations you think answers the above question. Moreover I had the question about wether you would try to go into negotiations with the ISO and/or find a sponsor if necessary.
greetings nad
Nadja,
I did not claim to have your question answered. I said I had answered John's question. Right now I am slightly confused about what your question is. Can you rephrase it and ask again? (The reference to "previous email" and links to the archive leave me merely more confused).
Also, I am not a lawyer.
The link to the patent policy page of the W3C describes the policy about how W3C standards are licensed. This covers such standards as RDF or OWL which we are using in the Wikidata development. W3C standards cover some of the most widely used standards on the Web, including HTML and XML, and have quite a track-record of having no IP issues.
Denny
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?csnum...
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