2010/3/22 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>:
> Hoi,
> When you use an application, it does not follow that the content becomes
> part of that license. It is perfectly ok to create proprietary fiction
> writing OpenOffice or conversely writing public domain fiction using
> MS/Word.
I perfectly agree with this particular example, the point here (in
DBpedia, OSM and other software alike) is that the definition of
"derivative work" from such projects is more difficult to give in some
cases: as Peter pointed out: "It depends on whether there is hard
coded information in the software that relies on Wikipedia I guess as
to whether it fits or not, but it is a vague area in many senses.".
The original and most fitting example was "a software for a navigator
(like TomTom, for instance) which use information extracted from OSM",
logically this work does rely on OSM data but the software itself
could hardly be considered a derivative work.
I believe that DBpedia is in the same situation. Note that this
problem can be applied "recursively" on products derived from data
extracted through DBpedia, so I perfectly agree with Peter... all this
is very vague and probably, IMHO, the existing free licenses aren't
designed for this (a lawyer expert on free licenses could be more
precise than me, though).
>
> However, given that the DBpedia software is available under a free license,
> claiming copyright on such a collection is problematic because everyone is
> invited to use the software and mutatis mutandis the resulting collection
> may be different.
>
> My personal belief is that the approach of making the facts Free is the
> right approach.
My last mail was about the fact that if DBpedia use GPLed software
being it (as a software) a derived work from other software it should
be released under GPL to comply with the GPL itself. Or at least, as I
was explaining in my previous email a copy of it should be licensed
under GPL (other can be licensed with different conditions).
But, here again, the problem is the definition of derivative work.
Here, for instance a FAQ from GNU site[1]:
If a program combines public-domain code with GPL-covered code, can I
take the public-domain part and use it as public domain code?
You can do that, if you can figure out which part is the public
domain part and separate it from the rest. If code was put in the
public domain by its developer, it is in the public domain no matter
where it has been.
I am sorry to have started such a mess! -_-
Cristian
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
