I say "yes" to all of this, John. So that's one vote "for."
kc

On 2/12/13 5:08 PM, John Shutt wrote:
> Seeing as there is some ambiguity around licensing, and a decent amount
> of CC-BY-SA content on Open Library right now, should I just continue
> with my project for the time being? I'm only planning to take the first
> paragraphs of Wikipedia articles, not whole pages, and I would add the
> appropriate linkback and license information underneath.
>
> I can see the advantages of releasing all data under CC0, but it would
> be a shame to leave out the enormous wealth of content available under
> other open licenses. The license terms would be clear to anyone who
> wanted to use the descriptions, since the disclaimer would always be
> included at the end, and if Open Library wanted to make the licenses
> machine-readable later on, it would be easy to find all of the edits
> made by my bot.
>
> Also keep in mind that if someone wants to write a description that's
> /better/ than the Wikipedia summary, that could be licensed under CC0.
> The Wikipedia summaries would only be added where nobody has written a
> description yet.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ben Companjen <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     I totally agree with Tom here.
>
>     I have always believed OL data was released under CC0 (and I hope it
>     will (continue to) be), mostly because of the message in the edit
>     form. Theoretically me agreeing to share info with OL under CC0
>     doesn't mean that OL must/will share it as CC0 again, but it is the
>     most prominent licencing agreement. Let's be clear about it, soon.
>
>     I confess that I too have taken a bit of Wikipedia and put in an
>     author profile (with attribution) - I didn't copy a whole page, but
>     I don't know if I can call it "fair use" either.
>
>     Ben
>
>
>     On 12 February 2013 21:07, Tom Morris <[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>         I was repeating CC0 without checking (partly because I thought
>         I'd heard that before).  Actually, the edit page *DOES* say CC0
>         "By saving a change to this wiki, you agree that your
>         contribution is given freely to the world under CC0. Yippee!"
>           What it should probably also say is "and you have the rights
>         to make this grant."  However, that's in conflict with the
>         license statement below...
>
>         On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Karen Coyle <[email protected]
>         <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>             The OL "license terms" are the IA "license terms" -- thus:
>             http://archive.org/about/terms.php
>
>
>         The "license" which is linked to from the site itself is at
>         http://openlibrary.org/developers/licensing and it says, in part:
>
>         "The Internet Archive does not assert any new copyright or other
>         proprietary rights over any of the material in the Open Library
>         database. There may be existing rights issues on some
>         contributions and in some jurisdictions. "
>         which is, quite frankly, a huge cop out.  That effectively says
>         that no one can use the information because you have no idea
>         what  rights and restrictions apply.  The only thing I can guess
>         is that they either didn't have the CC0 requirement in the early
>         days or they imported data of dubious provenance early on.
>
>         The only reasonable way to run a shared database like this is
>         the way Wikipedia, Freebase, etc do it.  That is, decide what
>         your license is going to be, then only accept contributions
>         which are acceptable under that license.  People will still
>         break the rules, but at least you've made an effort and are covered.
>
>             It is not CC0, because most of the info in OL is not owned
>             by OL/IA.
>             Only a rights owner can assign a CC license.
>
>             OL already pulls in descriptions from Wikipedia and sources
>             them:
>             http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL29497A/Herman_Melville
>
>
>         That was added by hand by user Winnie
>         http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL29497A/Herman_Melville?m=history
>
>             I believe that this fulfills the "attribution - share alike"
>             of Wikipedia.
>
>
>         I disagree because there is no requirement on downstream
>         consumers that they also license that text under CC-BY-SA.  If
>         that were allowed you could do "license washing" by taking
>         licensed text from Wikipedia, pouring it into Open Library and
>         then taking the OL dump and claiming that there was no license
>         attached.
>
>         Either the entire database needs a single homogeneous license
>         that humans can deal with or there needs to be machine readable
>         licensing information attached to subsets of the data.
>
>         The "we don't know what the license is and you'll need to figure
>         it out on your own" is useless from the point of view of someone
>         who wants to reuse the information.
>
>         Tom
>
>
>             kc
>
>             On 2/12/13 11:16 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
>              > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:58 AM, John Shutt
>             <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>              > <mailto:[email protected]
>             <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>              >
>              >
>              >     I noticed that a lot of books on Open Library don't have
>              >     descriptions, so I've started working on NondescriptBot
>              >     <https://github.com/pemulis/nondescript-bot>, which
>             would make it
>              >     easy to pull book summaries from Wikipedia, reformat
>             them, and add
>              >     them to Open Library. I haven't written any code yet
>             (except for the
>              >     login, which was adapted from IdentifierBot
>              >
>             
> <https://github.com/dmontalvo/IdentifierBot/blob/master/fastadder.py>),
>              >     but you can see the basic outline in the comments
>              >
>             
> <https://github.com/pemulis/nondescript-bot/blob/master/nondescriptbot.py>.
>              >
>              >     Before I go any further, I want to see if anyone
>             knows if this bot
>              >     would be okay from a licensing standpoint. Wikipedia
>             entries are
>              >     licensed under CC-BY-SA
>              >
>             
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License>,
>              >     which requires attribution, while Open Library
>             content is supposed
>              >     to be licensed under CC0
>              >     <https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/>,
>             which waives
>              >     all rights. It's trivial to put a CC-BY-SA disclaimer
>             at the bottom
>              >     of a description, but I don't know if it's permitted
>             to add content
>              >     to OL that falls under that license.
>              >
>              >
>              > No, you can't use a copyrightable amount of text which is
>             CC-BY-SA
>              > licensed on a CC0 site.  Part of the license is that you
>             need to enforce
>              > it for sub-licensees & reusers, which there's no way to
>             do with a CC0 work.
>              >
>              > You could paraphrase or reword the description, but
>             that's clearly not a
>              > job for a bot.  You could also extract a small enough
>             amount of text
>              > that it would fall under "fair use" guidelines and then
>             link back to
>              > Wikipedia for the full text.  If nothing else, links to
>             Wikipedia would
>              > be useful (provided that their reliable).
>              >
>              >     Assuming this bot is allowed, it would be awesome to
>             get advice and
>              >     pull requests from other developers! I'm coming into
>             this project
>              >     with very limited knowledge of Python, so I'm sure
>             there will be
>              >     plenty of places where my code could be improved.
>              >
>              >
>              > I'm happy to help with Python as well as OpenLibrary or
>             Wikipedia APIs.
>              >
>              > Tom
>              >
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Ol-tech mailing list
>         [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>         http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech
>         To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
>         [email protected]
>         <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ol-tech mailing list
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech
>     To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ol-tech mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to 
> [email protected]
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
_______________________________________________
Ol-tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to 
[email protected]

Reply via email to