2010/3/22 Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>: > However, the triples which are produced by those extractors, the > *data* which is held in Virtuoso, is a derivative work based on > Wikipedia. This collection (copyrightable, etc.) of facts (not > inherently copyrightable)
This is a good point, the "list of cities in Germany" is not inherently copyrightable IMHO, but as a collection of data extracted from a (common) source it is likely it is. The most funny thing is that if this sounds strange to you think about the fact that with traditional (sic) copyright you can't access those data. > is released (as of DBpedia v3.4) under > the CC-SA, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, 3.0 license > and the GNU Free Documentation License. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License> > <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html> > > The clauses of the CC-SA license particularly relevant to this > discussion are -- > > - Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner > specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way > that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.) > > - Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, > you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, > similar or a compatible license. > > Linked Data being something of a new world, I (and many others) have > suggested that a literal attribution is not satisfactory Attribution, > but that URI integrity should generally be preserved, and anywhere > a new URI is minted (especially where the new URI is used instead > of the original), an RDF relationship should be declared to the > originating URI -- which may demand that a new Relationship be built > into some ontology, e.g., basedOn, derivedFrom, or something along > these lines. > > The basic point being -- if you pull data from Wikipedia, you should > point back there. If you pull data from DBpedia, you should point > back *there* (and DBpedia, in turn, points back to Wikipedia). This > way, provenance is maintained, and credit is given where it is due. > You completely got the point =). > Thus far, DBpedia has not posted these requirements in clear fashion; > that's an error, I think. Nonetheless -- best practice, good manners, > and the spirit underlying most FOSS projects including Wikipedia, > all demand that attribution be appropriate to the medium. In print, > a simple literal statement is fine. In machine-readable data, the > attribution should likewise be machine-readable. Sound good to me. I hope that a solution (as the above you mentioned) will be implemented soon. Though, evidence seems that existing licenses by themselves don't cover this situations. Cristian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
