Alsee added a comment.
There is a very serious error pervading this discussion. Everyone is working on the presumption that Wikidata is importing pure facts. This is false. Wikidata often imports creative works of authorship.
I went to Wikidata and clicked random item, it took me a matter of
Psychoslave added a comment.
Hi @Pintoch if a license is compatible with CC0 requirements, then yes it can be imported into any dataset covered by CC0, including Wikidata.
The link you are providing is a minutes of a workshop to which I attended. I think it's great that Etalab took such a clear
Pintoch added a comment.
Etalab (who runs the open data portal of the French government) have released a statement (in French) concerning the attribution requirement of their "licence ouverte", confirming that it only applies to the first re-user.
Psychoslave added a comment.
Hi @Denny any news regarding this? What's your mind concerning my additional more precise questions on lexical data?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc:
ArthurPSmith added a comment.
Here's a specific question that might be detailed enough in description: suppose we have a collection of facts (say the names, countries, inception dates, and official websites for a collection of organizations) that has been extracted from multiple sources,
ArthurPSmith added a comment.
Hi - my most recent response was following MisterSynergy's comment on Denny's proposed questions, and specifically the meaning of "processes that in bulk extract facts from Wikipedia articles," - it sounds like from subsequent discussion that we are not talking solely
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4234449, @TomT0m wrote:
Said differently: the fact that the informations are in Wikipedia would
prevent to have them in Wikidata or any other database.
No, I don't see on which legal bases someone could claim something even approaching such an extensive
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4234062, @ArthurPSmith wrote:
based on the fact that we have ~42M “imported from” references and ~64M sitelinks in Wikidata
Hmm, I've added likely over 1000 of those "imported from" items myself by hand, for example for organization "official website"
TomT0m added a comment.
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4231659 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4231659,
@TomT0m https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/p/TomT0m/ wrote:
That mean that you could potentially indeed rebuild the very same set of
books with a prose automaton, but also
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4233267, @Denny wrote:
"what are the benefit for the Wikimedia community of using exclusively CC-0 for its single Wikibase instance usable in the rest of its environment?"
This question is, I think, less suitable for a lawyer. I think this is a very
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4231659, @TomT0m wrote:
As far as I understand copyright, if by a pure random event I happen to
write exactly one page of Harry Potter, I can’t publish this as easily as I
would want. The stuff is protected whatever the way it was created. So it
does not
Lydia_Pintscher added a comment.
Folks, can we please not start the discussion about whether Wikidata should be CC-0 or not again? We've had it. It is. Let's please concentrate on the question of which imports are ok and which are not. Because that does need clarification.TASK
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4232253, @ArthurPSmith wrote:
Some references on why CC0 is essential for a free public database:
Essential, no. Interesting, certainly.
Now the point is not whether CC-0 offer well balance convenience for factual data bases, or better long term
Mateusz_Konieczny added a comment.
Databases with more restrictive licenses than CC0 are useless for re-users
This is clearly false, see OpenStreetMap as an example.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4231932, @MisterSynergy wrote:
Users of Wikidata can compile datasets of any form and content with the query service, and re-use it according to the CC0 license (i.e.: do whatever they want to, particularly without attribution).
Well, with proper
Mateusz_Konieczny added a comment.
Or is thousands of individuals adding these entries by hand also a concern?
It does not matter at all whatever things were copied by hand or by a script. Repainting a copyrighted image pixel by pixel also would not change its legal status.TASK
ArthurPSmith added a comment.
based on the fact that we have ~42M “imported from” references and ~64M sitelinks in Wikidata
Hmm, I've added likely over 1000 of those "imported from" items myself by hand, for example for organization "official website" entries. So I would say "imported from" gives
MisterSynergy added a comment.
In T193728#4233267, @Denny wrote:
… the practice of having processes that in bulk extract facts from Wikipedia articles …
You probably need to describe how these processes look like, otherwise this question would be impossible to answer properly. To my knowledge
Denny added a comment.
"what are the benefit for the Wikimedia community of using exclusively CC-0 for its single Wikibase instance usable in the rest of its environment?"
This question is, I think, less suitable for a lawyer. I think this is a very interesting question, but I'd rather focus now
Micru added a comment.
In T193728#4231920, @Psychoslave wrote:
From what I understand, you are describing the "same condition" which is expressed by the SA in the CC-BY-SA covering Wikipedia, but I might be misinterpreting your text. If not, I would recommend you to read the license. The best
ArthurPSmith added a comment.
Some references on why CC0 is essential for a free public database:
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_use_for_data
"Databases may contain facts that, in and of themselves, are not protected by copyright law. However, the copyright laws of many jurisdictions
MisterSynergy added a comment.
In T193728#4231813, @Psychoslave wrote:
In T193728#4214437, @MisterSynergy wrote:
If any of those happened (or had to happen), I’d be out here and I guess many other Wikidata editors would also discontinue their efforts. There is great support for CC0 in Wikidata,
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4228561, @Micru wrote:
In a way Wikipedia already has a "contribute-alike" agreement, it is just not explicit, but tacit. Users come to the site, access it as they wish, and they are asked to make a donation every once in a while. It is not a contribution
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4214437, @MisterSynergy wrote:
If any of those happened (or had to happen), I’d be out here and I guess many other Wikidata editors would also discontinue their efforts. There is great support for CC0 in Wikidata, since anything else that required
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4212631, @Denny wrote:
@Rspeer
But even ignoring that, Wikidata does *not* store the same _expression_ anyway. So what exactly is the copyright asserted on?
For now I propose we discuss the "original selection" criteria.
Even sticking with the single
TomT0m added a comment.
Well, entries that were not created thanks to massive import from
Wikipedia obviously don't raise any concern of infringement of Wikipedia
community copyright. It doesn't say more about those that were indeed
imported in such a way, do it?
As far as I understand copyright,
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4205401, @Denny wrote:
@Rspeer regarding the ontology: the ontology of Wikidata is genuinely unique and not copied from any Wikipedia project, or any other project. It has been created on Wikidata.
Well, I think it's fine that we keep concentrating at a
Nemo_bis added a comment.
We should first agree that the problem is really about "substantial transfer of data"
It's not.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Nemo_bisCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole,
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4204779, @Denny wrote:
@Nemo_bis thanks, I agree with your point a lot.
But regarding your question - just because there is a database which happens to reproducible should not trigger any right issues.
To give an example: it is easy to imagine a company
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4204771, @Denny wrote:
@Psychoslave sorry to disagree on the questions, but are we in any disagreement on these three questions?
We should not allow the (significant) import of data from databases which are licensed under a license incompatible with CC-0.
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4204019, @TomT0m wrote:
The more I personnaly dig into this questions, the more issues are opened and the less clear it becomes that there is an actual issue, and if there is an actual issue if there is a legal risk. Or even if there is a moral or ethical
Micru added a comment.
In T193728#4223211, @Cirdan wrote:
CC licences are built within the framework of current copyright law.
That seems to be the main issue, we are thinking about current CC licenses/copyright law without considering that these are a construct that can be changed as society
Psychoslave added a comment.
Sorry, I've been busy on other activities lately, I'll catch up and give feed back as soon as I can.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith,
TomT0m added a comment.
Well, you just said that that there might be cases "where copyright law
permits the extraction of information from copyrighted texts", so I believe
that an explicit indication about those cases in the CC-BY-SA license could
be helpful for other people to avoid repeating
Cirdan added a comment.
In T193728#4221843, @Micru wrote:
Wikipedias rephrase the content of works under copyright and rebrand that content as CC-BY-SA, which label do you put to that practice?
That is not what Wikipedia is doing. Wikipedia is using information collected by third parties to
Micru added a comment.
In T193728#4220248, @Cirdan wrote:
I'm again sorry to say that, but your comments show a deeply flawed understanding of copyright.
Thank you then for using your time to enlighten me and whoever who might be reading this conversation.
Copyright of texts is by no means
Cirdan added a comment.
In T193728#4213806, @Micru wrote:
since I hold the rights to that text
The concept of "rights" is quite flexible, as shows Wikipedia. The Wikipedias are based on texts that have copyrights but they have been re-paraphrased so that the copyright no longer applies. Same
SimonPoole added a comment.
IMHO there are multiple, mainly communications related issues, that continue to lead to confusion
people actually need to read the text of the CC0 licence, you will find by using CC0 that the WMF does not make any representations as to third party data in wikidata
Micru added a comment.
In my understanding, it would need an update to the CC license itself, which would need to be done by CC, and then have the license be adopted by the Foundation together with the community
@Denny If we need the support of CC on this, there is no harm on asking for it. In a
Rspeer added a comment.
R2 sounds like the right question. Thanks.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs,
Denny added a comment.
@Mateusz_Konieczny I like R-OSM-1 too. I would go now for these two questions.
I'd really like to have @Psychoslave chime in, as he was the one opening this bug and certainly being the most vocal on this topic, as far as I have seen, so I will leave this open for a few days
Mateusz_Konieczny added a comment.
R2 sounds excellent. It covers main legal issue that absolutely needs resolving.
Though I am also curious about OSM.
My R-OSM-1 would be
R-OSM-1: "What, if anything, may be imported from ODBL licensed databases like OSM into Wikidata, published under
Denny added a comment.
@Rspeer
My previous suggestion to @Psychoslave was
P) "Can you comment on the practise of extracting data from Wikipedia articles, which are published under CC-BY-SA, and storing the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?"
I guess the phrasing in that
Denny added a comment.
@MisterSynergy yes, I agree, it would seriously weaken Wikidata. Nevertheless it is good to resolve legal uncertainties as far as reasonable.
Regarding Gnom1 - well, he did write the previous, official answer by Wikilegal, which is why I consider that a great offer. But I
Rspeer added a comment.
Once again, it's silly to talk about this issue going to court. Wikimedia contributors are not taking other Wikimedia contributors to court over internal disagreements on how the CC-By-SA license should apply. But we're weakening the legitimacy of Wikimedia licenses by not
MisterSynergy added a comment.
In T193728#4214033, @Denny wrote:
My current goal to shepherd this bug to a closure is to agree with people who have a different point of view on a question or two to ask Gnom1, and then work on from his answer.
In case of serious doubt it is more appropriate to
Denny added a comment.
@Micru I agree with @Cirdan that this would be a rather worrying way to deal with the situation. Also, as @Nemo_bis points out, it really couldn't be just the communities doing so. In my understanding, it would need an update to the CC license itself, which would need to be
Micru added a comment.
since I hold the rights to that text
The concept of "rights" is quite flexible, as shows Wikipedia. The Wikipedias are based on texts that have copyrights but they have been re-paraphrased so that the copyright no longer applies. Same with data-mining, in a way it is
Cirdan added a comment.
In T193728#4213766, @Micru wrote:
Aside from the fact that every single contributor would have to be asked to agree to the change of the license
Not necessarily, a broad discussion with a majority agreeing on it can be enough.
I'm sorry, but your understanding of
Micru added a comment.
Aside from the fact that every single contributor would have to be asked to agree to the change of the license
Not necessarily, a broad discussion with a majority agreeing on it can be enough.
The solution to such a potential massive license violation on Wikidata cannot be
Cirdan added a comment.
In T193728#4212948, @Micru wrote:
Not really, the license is one of the non-negotiable aspects of Wikimedia projects.
With enough support, everything is negotiable.
Aside from the fact that every single contributor would have to be asked to agree to the change of the
Micru added a comment.
Not really, the license is one of the non-negotiable aspects of Wikimedia projects.
With enough support, everything is negotiable.
Hardly anyone has! When we switched from GFDL to CC-BY-SA, a new GFDL version had to be released for us to be able to do it. The license
Cirdan added a comment.
In T193728#4212728, @Denny wrote:
And thus, since we never required to have the interwiki links attributed in the first place - as I just showed - we obviously do not seem to regard them as being copyrightable and covered by the CC-BY-SA license.
That conclusion is not
Cirdan added a comment.
In T193728#4212870, @Micru wrote:
would it be feasible to ask the several Wikipedia(s) communities to add a clause where it is stated that statements can be mined by the Wikidata community (exclusively or not) and re-released as CC0 on the Wikidata platform?
Leaving
Nemo_bis added a comment.
Since the license in the Wikipedia(s) is managed by the community,
Not really, the license is one of the non-negotiable aspects of Wikimedia projects.
and the community has the power to change the license, or made amendments to the license
Hardly so! When we switched
Micru added a comment.
I have a question regarding Wikipedia(s)->Wikidata imports. Since the license in the Wikipedia(s) is managed by the community, and the community has the power to change the license, or made amendments to the license , would it be feasible to ask the several Wikipedia(s)
EgonWillighagen added a comment.
In T193728#4212862, @Rspeer wrote:
how to change Wikidata's copyright status.
In which you assume it will chance license(/waiver)... If you seek certainty, plenty of people have indicated their view on the situation here, but this discussion is not ever going to
Rspeer added a comment.
My previous comment probably crossed a line. I'm sorry.
But your convoluted argument has shown nothing and is irrelevant to Wikidata.
Wikipedia is fine with a very lax approach to attribution. It encourages external sites to attribute simply "Wikipedia, the free
Rspeer added a comment.
This reads like the transcript of a "sovereign citizen" arguing why they don't have to pay taxes because the flag in the courtroom doesn't have some feature they insist on.
If this isn't the place to be serious about changing Wikidata's license to CC-By-SA so it can keep
Denny added a comment.
@Rspeer If I link an article from the German Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia by adding an interwiki link on the German Wikipedia, and then an interwiki bot makes this link be reciprocal by adding the interwiki link on the English Wikipedia, there is no attribution to me
Rspeer added a comment.
[...] without any reference to the originating author. So if that is the case, Wikipedia has already never been compliant with that license.
Wikipedia's interpretation of attribution has always been that the page editing history is sufficient attribution. And, of course,
Rspeer added a comment.
@Denny Nobody's copyright is going to be invalidated by your personal beliefs.
And what do bots have to do with anything? Wiki bots are simple scripts operated by humans. I know how the translation bots worked in particular -- they relied on active approval by their human
Denny added a comment.
I was reading the article you linked to - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he#Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he_seit_2013 - and nothing there lets me believe that the list of Interwikilinks would have sufficient "Schöpfungshöhe".TASK
Aschmidt added a comment.
Am 18.05.18 um 00:05 Uhr schrieb Denny:
Copyright has to be about some concrete _expression_.
I'm afraid this is not the case. According to German law copyright is
all about what we call Schöpfungshöhe, and it seems that other legal
systems also subscribe to this
Denny added a comment.
@Rspeer
Copyright has to be about some concrete _expression_.
Are you claiming that the interwiki links that used to be in Wikipedia articles until five years ago should have had copyright protection? Their concrete _expression_ was [[en:London]] [[fr:Londres]]
Rspeer added a comment.
the fact that 'London' is called 'Londres' in Frech is rather un-creative
@Denny: Where is this reductionism getting you? You can pick one simple example at a time and entirely miss the point. When you have, say, 20,000 English terms that are translated to 20,000 French
Aschmidt added a comment.
Am 14.05.18 um 22:36 Uhr schrieb Nemo_bis:
But law is a matter of quality rather than size.
But quantitative indicators can be a proxy for quality. A dataset with
just 200 statements has most likely been produced by dozens or hundreds
of entities none of which can
Nemo_bis added a comment.
In T193728#4205679, @Aschmidt wrote:
Am 14.05.18 um 17:23 Uhr schrieb Nemo_bis:
But I'd argue that nobody would see such a dataset as problematic,
especially because it's so small (few hundreds data points).
But law is a matter of quality rather than size.
But
Aschmidt added a comment.
Am 14.05.18 um 17:23 Uhr schrieb Nemo_bis:
But I'd argue that nobody would see such a dataset as problematic,
especially because it's so small (few hundreds data points).
But law is a matter of quality rather than size.TASK
Denny added a comment.
@Nemo_bis : good point. I wouldn't know what a good example is, though, maybe someone else can come up with something.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: Lofhi,
Denny added a comment.
@Rspeer regarding the ontology: the ontology of Wikidata is genuinely unique and not copied from any Wikipedia project, or any other project. It has been created on Wikidata.
Regarding the translations: we are talking about the labels of things in different languages? They
Nemo_bis added a comment.
In T193728#4204779, @Denny wrote:
To give an example: it is easy to imagine a company that sells the list of all countries and their capitals as a dataset that is easy to process and that has a guaranteed quality and support level, to other companies, under a proprietary
Denny added a comment.
@Nemo_bis thanks, I agree with your point a lot.
But regarding your question - just because there is a database which happens to reproducible should not trigger any right issues.
To give an example: it is easy to imagine a company that sells the list of all countries and
Denny added a comment.
@Psychoslave sorry to disagree on the questions, but are we in any disagreement on these three questions?
We should not allow the (significant) import of data from databases which are licensed under a license incompatible with CC-0.
We should enforce that.
We should
Nemo_bis added a comment.
In T193728#4188820, @Denny wrote:
No, I was seriously not aware that we are uploading datasets with incompatible licenses.
Perhaps because it's not so. CC-0 data is being uploaded which was extracted or elaborated from sources which are not in CC-0. This is totally
TomT0m added a comment.
In such cases there is a simple rule which says that you should choose the safest way in order to comply with the law, as any doubt remaining would be baneful.
Well, a few things:
This is only my personal opinion, certainly not a definitive answer. I would not want a
Aschmidt added a comment.
Am 14.05.18 um 11:37 Uhr schrieb TomT0m:
The more I personnaly dig into this questions, the more issues are
opened and the less clear it becomes that there is an actual issue, and
if there is an actual issue if there is a legal risk. Or even if there
is a moral or
TomT0m added a comment.
Just to check if there is an actual problem here: let’s imagine a theorical usecase.
Alice, or the AliceAndBob group, contributed to Wikipedia and are hurt because some informations they entered in Wikipedia are also present in Wikidata. She/They thinks there legal rights
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4203583, @EgonWillighagen wrote:
In T193728#4189219, @Psychoslave wrote:
Let's recall that whether this transfer is done by automation or crowdsourcing doesn't matter, it's the quantity of transferred data
Of all things I read about copyright law (IANAL
Rspeer added a comment.
If you really wish for your data to be under CC0, why would you have any preferences at all over what happens to it? CC0 is the license where your wishes don't matter. It's as close to public domain as possible.
If you wish your data to remain under the same terms, that's
EgonWillighagen added a comment.
Hi all, IANAL but have been professionally dealing with copyright for quite some time now (scholar, author, database creator, advisor, etc, etc).
First, automated (bots, quickstatements) added of content that is not public domain (the formal type, e.g. in USA, not
Cirdan added a comment.
In T193728#4203583, @EgonWillighagen wrote:
In T193728#4189219, @Psychoslave wrote:
Let's recall that whether this transfer is done by automation or crowdsourcing doesn't matter, it's the quantity of transferred data
Of all things I read about copyright law (IANAL but
Psychoslave added a comment.
Hi @Denny, here are a small set questions that are hopefully simple and concrete:
should we allow transfer into Wikidata of any significant data sets which obviously come directly from a project covered by a license incompatible with CC-0?
should this be allowed,
EgonWillighagen added a comment.
In T193728#4189219, @Psychoslave wrote:
Let's recall that whether this transfer is done by automation or crowdsourcing doesn't matter, it's the quantity of transferred data
Of all things I read about copyright law (IANAL but very interested), this is not what I
Denny added a comment.
@Gnom1 - yes, anything that you can contribute would be awesome.
Unfortunately, this request here is all over the place, ranging from the question whether it is legally permissible to have a statement reference Wikipedia to the way inline images are displayed, so it might
Simon_Villeneuve added a comment.
In T193728#4202978, @Aschmidt wrote:
Please don't get me wrong, but what good is it to have a discussion
between people who do not understand transnational problems in media law?
Probably as good as it is to have a discussion between people who aren't
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4202938, @Simon_Villeneuve wrote:
I think that Jarekt has expressed the position of most of the Wikidata contributors : facts can't be copyrighted.
So far it doesn't seem that anyone have disagreed with that: a single fact can't be copyrighted.
However
NMaia added a comment.
We need Wikimedia lawyers to issue a formal statement.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: NMaiaCc: NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt,
Aschmidt added a comment.
Am 13.05.18 um 13:43 Uhr schrieb Simon_Villeneuve:
Do all international laws
recognize this ? I don't know.
[...]
Do all international laws
recognize this ? I don't know, but I'm more confident on this point than
on the first one.
Please don't get me wrong, but
Rspeer added a comment.
The point is not whether Wikipedia (or another project) can "claim infringement" against Wikidata. The point is that Wikidata should just not infringe anyway. Wikidata is not being an equitable ally to other projects when it doesn't respect the terms of their licenses, even
Psychoslave added a comment.
In T193728#4200647, @Tgr wrote:
Do editors have rights over infobox data? Individual facts are not copyrightable; collections of infobox data could maybe be copyrighted if they were curated by an organization with a legal personality, or a well-defined group of
Rspeer added a comment.
I must amend my previous statement; I thought Wikipedia categories were all represented on Wikidata, but it appears they may not be. Maybe I don't know how to use Wikidata, or maybe this is something that could be possible if Wikidata were CC-By-SA.
A different example,
Rspeer added a comment.
Wikidata has copied the entire ontology of Wikipedia categories.
The claim that ontologies are not copyrightable would be controversial at best, actively untrue if our EU experts are to be believed, and certainly should not be an official position taken by a Wikimedia
Jarekt added a comment.
The type of data we are copying from Wikimedia projects to to Wikidata is not copyrightable. Those are just facts, like coordinates, dates, names, filenames, identifiers (like VIAF numbers, etc.), etc. on Commons we have template for such data:
Rspeer added a comment.
Tgr: The situation of having the copyright on a project held by a large number of different individuals is not unique, and it does not at all make the copyright invalid like the "monkey selfie". This is the way that most open-source software projects work.
Wikimedia
Aschmidt added a comment.
Please note that there is not one copyright law. There are as many copyright laws as there are legal systems Wikipedia and Wikidata content can be retrieved from.
Exporting data that was published under CC-by-sa to a database licenced under CC-0 obviously is a problem,
Tgr added a comment.
Do editors have rights over infobox data? Individual facts are not copyrightable; collections of infobox data could maybe be copyrighted if they were curated by an organization with a legal personality, or a well-defined group of authors, but that is not the case. "The
Rspeer added a comment.
I agree that Wikidata has been making a big mistake here.
Many Wikipedia editors put incredible amounts of effort into maintaining things such as its infoboxes and category structure. These are not merely a list of facts about the world -- they are curated, they attempt to
Psychoslave added a comment.
Also I think that if we want to really expand our community outside Europe and North America, it would be important to provide an infrastructure that ease contribution and reuse without too much legal concerns in places where we expect to make serious outreach to
Mateusz_Konieczny added a comment.
Another example of "lets ignore copyright": https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:OpenStreetMap had no mention whatsoever that imports from OSM to Wikidata are against OSM license and are not allowed (I just added section mentioning this).TASK
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
