On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Peter Southwood <
Wikipedia is not about infoboxes, they are (and are
intended to be) a
small to very small part of the article in most cases. Similarly,
Wikipedias are not databases, so also without being a lawyer, I think your
interpretation is wrong.
If you look at the Meta document I linked, you'll find that the definition
of a database provided there is quite broad:
From a legal perspective, a database is any organized
materials — hard copy or electronic — that permits a user to search
access individual pieces of information contained within the materials. No
database software, as a programmer would understand it, is necessary. In
the US, for example, Black’s Law Dictionary defines a database as a
"compilation of information arranged in a systematic way and offering a
means of finding specific elements it contains, often today by electronic
means." Databases may be protected by US copyright law as
"compilations." In the EU, databases are protected by the Database
Directive, which defines a database as "a collection of independent works,
data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and
individually accessible by electronic or other means."
You could argue that the sum of Wikipedia's harvestable infoboxes,
templates etc. constitutes a database, according to those definitions.
There is also the argument about the benefit of attribution, as opposed to
having data appear out of nowhere in a way that is completely opaque to end
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
The CC-0 license was set up with the express reason that everybody can use
our data without any impediment. Our objective is to share in the sum of
all knowledge and we are more effective in that way.
We do not care about market dominance, we care about
doing our utmost to
have the best data available.
Are these not just well-worn platitudes? If you cared so much about
quality, you or someone else would have fixed the Grasulf II of Friuli
entry by now.
> On 18 December 2015 at 09:05, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com
> > Gerard,
> > Of course you can't license or copyright facts, but as the WMF legal
> > page on this topic outlines, there are database and compilation rights
> > that exist independently of copyright. IANAL, but as I read that page, if
> > you simply go ahead and copy all the infobox, template etc. content from
> > Wikipedia, this "would likely be a violation" even under US law (not
> > mention EU law).
> > I don't know why Wikipedia was set up with a CC BY-SA licence rather
> than a
> > CC0 licence, and the attribution required under CC BY-SA is unduly
> > cumbersome, but attribution has always seemed to me like a useful
> > The fact that people like VDM Publishing who sell Wikipedia articles as
> > books are required to say that their material comes from Wikipedia is
> > useful, for example.
> > Naturally it fosters re-use if you make Wikidata CC0, but that's
> > the point: you end up with a level of "market dominance" that just
> > healthy.
> >  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights