Thank you for your answer, Sebastian.
Publishing the Gutachten would be fantastic! That would be very helpful and deeply appreciated.
Regarding the relicensing, I agree with you. You can just go and do that, and given that you ask for attribution to DBpedia, and not to Wikipedia, I would claim that's what you're doing. And I think that's fine.
Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you have to respect it transitively. That is one of the reasons a license that requires BY sucks so hard for data: unlike with text, the attribution requirements grow very quickly. It is the same as with modified images and collages: it is not sufficient to attribute the last author, but all contributors have to be attributed.
This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a large federation of data on the web, should publish under CC0.
That is very different from licensing texts or images. But for data anything else is just weird and will bite is in the long run more than we might ever benefit.
So, just to say it again: if the Gutachten you mentioned could be made available, that would be very very awesome!
Thank you, Denny
On Thu, May 17, 2018, 23:06 Sebastian Hellmann < hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
Hi Denny,
On 18.05.2018 02:54, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Rob Speer wrote:
The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
DBPedia
and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state "Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active through at least one (preferably all) of @href, <link />, or "Link:". If live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual blurb-based attribution is acceptable." http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint
So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it is entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.
What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the original source of the extraction.
(A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)
My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a different attribution) is legally sound.
In the SmartDataWeb project https://www.smartdataweb.de/ we hired lawyers to write a legal review about the extraction situation. Facts can be extracted and republished under CC-0 without problem as is the case of infoboxes.. Copying a whole database is a different because database rights hold. If you only extract ~ two sentences it falls under citation, which is also easy. If it is more than two sentence, then copyright applies.
I can check whether it is ready and shareable. The legal review (Gutachten) is quite a big thing as it has some legal relevancy and can be cited in court.
Hence we can switch to ODC-BY with facts as CC-0 and the text as share-alike. However the attribution mentioned in the imprint is still fine, since it is under database and not the content/facts. I am still uncertain about the attribution. If you remix and publish you need to cite the direct sources. But if somebody takes from you, does he only attribute to you or to everybody you used in a transitive way.
Anyhow, we are sharpening the whole model towards technology, not data/content. So the databus will be a transparent layer and it is much easier to find the source like Wikipedia and Wikidata and do contributions there, which is actually one of the intentions of share-alike (getting work pushed back/upstream).
All the best, Sebastian
If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been followed on Wikidata.
For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata project chat and in Phabricator:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wiki...
I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.
Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be, for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the copyright of interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to Wikidata?", I'd be quite happy with that question - if that's the disagreement, let us ask Legal help and see if my understanding or yours is correct.
Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question would you like to ask instead?
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
enemy of science and knowledge
Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term, which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected by CC-By-SA.
Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA. I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make us follow it", etc.
The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright
is
predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from
everywhere
and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
Wikipedia,
it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do; maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do
as
well as "we" do it.
When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few
things
we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
uploaded
(Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
copyright
holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.
As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
there
is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good
because it
is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is
superior
as a tool for disambiguation.
About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do
you
copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
is
corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
the
data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
notion
that data that is only present in single sources is what needs
attention.
It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process
negating
the copyright held on databases.
I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
our
attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued, Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
be
used as a repository of quality, open and linked data. Thanks, GerardM
[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-da...
On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer rob@luminoso.com wrote:
Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
that
change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
idea
that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
Commons
violation is coming from inside the house!
On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 that you might be
interested
to look at and participate in.
As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
the
discussion on the Wikidata chat < https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
Cheers
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikidata mailing listWikidata@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- All the best, Sebastian Hellmann
Director of Knowledge Integration and Linked Data Technologies (KILT) Competence Center at the Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI) at Leipzig University Executive Director of the DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://nlp2rdf.org, http://linguistics.okfn.org, https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt Homepage: http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann Research Group: http://aksw.org