If it's pulling from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA) what is the justification for converting the license to CC0?
Hoi, You are wrong. When you read an article and morf it into a Wikipedia article, you do not have to maintain the copyright of the original. The same applies to Wikidata. Also what do you call Wikipedia? Wikidata contains much more than just Wikipedia particularly English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 June 2018 at 03:46, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
If it's pulling from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA) what is the justification for converting the license to CC0? _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Ave Cunctator.
The Cunctator, 18/06/2018 04:46:
If it's pulling from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA)
It's not, in the sense that it's not getting any copyrightable bits from it.
A relevant document is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights.
Then just few days ago there was an exhausting discussion in various mailing lists and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728.
Federico
It looks from that discussion that the violations of cc-by-sa in order to help google's profits have not been in any way resolved.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 1:56 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Ave Cunctator.
The Cunctator, 18/06/2018 04:46:
If it's pulling from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA)
It's not, in the sense that it's not getting any copyrightable bits from it.
A relevant document is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights.
Then just few days ago there was an exhausting discussion in various mailing lists and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728.
Federico
Hoi, That is one argument that has nothing to do with copyright. Google may use our content as long as it complies with the license. In addition to this, our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge. Arguably when Google pays for the distribution, it saves us money.. Your logic has us pay Google for helping us achieve our aims.
In addition, this has nothing to do with Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 June 2018 at 15:18, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
It looks from that discussion that the violations of cc-by-sa in order to help google's profits have not been in any way resolved.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 1:56 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Ave Cunctator.
The Cunctator, 18/06/2018 04:46:
If it's pulling from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA)
It's not, in the sense that it's not getting any copyrightable bits from it.
A relevant document is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights.
Then just few days ago there was an exhausting discussion in various mailing lists and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728.
Federico
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Your claims that the abusive destruction of copyleft by the Wikidata project have nothing to do with copyright and nothing to do with Wikidata don't make any sense.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, That is one argument that has nothing to do with copyright. Google may use our content as long as it complies with the license. In addition to this, our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge. Arguably when Google pays for the distribution, it saves us money.. Your logic has us pay Google for helping us achieve our aims.
In addition, this has nothing to do with Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 June 2018 at 15:18, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
It looks from that discussion that the violations of cc-by-sa in order to help google's profits have not been in any way resolved.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 1:56 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Ave Cunctator.
The Cunctator, 18/06/2018 04:46:
If it's pulling from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA)
It's not, in the sense that it's not getting any copyrightable bits
from
it.
A relevant document is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights.
Then just few days ago there was an exhausting discussion in various mailing lists and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728.
Federico
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Is there a coherent explanation of what content Wikidata is extracting from CC-BY-SA projects?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:55 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Your claims that the abusive destruction of copyleft by the Wikidata project have nothing to do with copyright and nothing to do with Wikidata don't make any sense.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, That is one argument that has nothing to do with copyright. Google may use our content as long as it complies with the license. In addition to this, our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge. Arguably when Google pays for the distribution, it saves us money.. Your logic has us pay Google for helping us achieve our aims.
In addition, this has nothing to do with Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 June 2018 at 15:18, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
It looks from that discussion that the violations of cc-by-sa in order
to
help google's profits have not been in any way resolved.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 1:56 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Ave Cunctator.
The Cunctator, 18/06/2018 04:46:
If it's pulling from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA)
It's not, in the sense that it's not getting any copyrightable bits
from
it.
A relevant document is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights.
Then just few days ago there was an exhausting discussion in various mailing lists and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728.
Federico
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The Cunctator, 18/06/2018 17:57:
Is there a coherent explanation of what content Wikidata is extracting from CC-BY-SA projects?
Not really, because it's a very distributed and long-running process (which is very very far from completion). But there are some relevant examples explained in some publications. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/412922/1/opensym_wd_vs_wp_2_.pdf https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/413433/1/Open_Sym_Short_Paper_Wikidata_Multiling... http://oadoi.org/10.1145/2872427.2874809
Your claims that the abusive destruction of copyleft by the Wikidata project have nothing to do with copyright and nothing to do with Wikidata don't make any sense.
By "abusive destruction of copyleft" do you mean the practice of mirroring Wikipedia articles, or snippets thereof, without really complying with the copyleft licenses?
The first large scale example (which went way beyond the usual rogue mirrors) was probably Facebook with "community pages" in 2010. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2010-April/104232.html
At the time, the Wikimedia Foundation attempted to get them include a visible reference to CC-BY-SA, links from which the history and edit buttons would be visible, and so on. Some considered the result acceptable, some didn't. But many said there was no way to enforce something else.
Free riders are a common and well-studied issue of copyleft projects. The countermeasure is generally some kind of copyleft compliance syndicate, like https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html
Federico
I assume Cunctator (hello!) means he sees extraction of facts / relationships from CC-SA articles, and claiming those facts are CC-0, hurts copyleft.
I don't see copyright/left as applying to individual facts or data; so I don't think this is a legal issue; but the social and practical questions are relevant. [how do we set expectations? as it becomes easier to decompose narratives and texts into constellations of facts, what's the impact on (c) / (ↄ), &c.]
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:27 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
The Cunctator, 18/06/2018 17:57:
Is there a coherent explanation of what content Wikidata is extracting
from
CC-BY-SA projects?
Not really, because it's a very distributed and long-running process (which is very very far from completion). But there are some relevant examples explained in some publications. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/412922/1/opensym_wd_vs_wp_2_.pdf
https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/413433/1/Open_Sym_Short_Paper_Wikidata_Multiling... http://oadoi.org/10.1145/2872427.2874809
Your claims that the abusive destruction of copyleft by the Wikidata project have nothing to do with copyright and nothing to do with Wikidata don't make any sense.
By "abusive destruction of copyleft" do you mean the practice of mirroring Wikipedia articles, or snippets thereof, without really complying with the copyleft licenses?
The first large scale example (which went way beyond the usual rogue mirrors) was probably Facebook with "community pages" in 2010. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2010-April/104232.html
At the time, the Wikimedia Foundation attempted to get them include a visible reference to CC-BY-SA, links from which the history and edit buttons would be visible, and so on. Some considered the result acceptable, some didn't. But many said there was no way to enforce something else.
Free riders are a common and well-studied issue of copyleft projects. The countermeasure is generally some kind of copyleft compliance syndicate, like https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html
Federico
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org