+1 to that. I had been thinking along the same lines, but didn't write it down. Of course it isn't a solution for all the works that already contain Wikipedia content.
But even more important I think is that the licence that applies is made very clear. If it is CC0, add a note that copyrighted content cannot be added. Can you shed a light on that, Anand? Ben On Feb 19, 2013 9:29 AM, "Anand Chitipothu" <[email protected]> wrote: > Another solution is to add wikipedia ID to work page and fetch the > wikipedia description while rendering the page. > > That way the content will not be part of OL data. No licensing issues. > > Anand > > On 13-Feb-2013, at 2:31 AM, Ben Companjen 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]> 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]> 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]>> 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] >> http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to >> [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] > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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] > >
_______________________________________________ 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]
