Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[mathieu lovato stumpf guntz]

Hi Andra,


Le 04/07/2018 à 13:00, Andra Waagmeester a écrit :



No, Wikidata is not going to change the CC0. You seem to be the
only person wanting that and trying to discredit Wikidata will not
help you in your crusade. I suggest the people who are still
interested in this to go to
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728
 and make useful
comments over there.

It seems all this assertions are following some erroneous assumptions. 
This ticket is not about changing Wikidata license. It aims at making 
sure what can and what can not be legally imported into a database using 
CC0, and in which juridiction it can be legally used safely or not in 
downstream projects.


It would certainly be interesting that Wikimedia infrastructure would 
allow to host projects using Wikibase with other topic/license scopes 
that are queriables within other Wikimedia projects. Surelly it would 
make a good match with the "become the essential infrastructure of the 
ecosystem of free knowledge" goal. But that's an other story, and I 
didn't found time to work on that topic so far.


It would also be great if we could avoid to imput the title of "crusader 
dedicated to discredit Wikidata" to someone that not later than this 
afternoon helped a new contributor to make its first edit on this project.


Cheers.



Maarten


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata





___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

2018-07-04 12:50 GMT+02:00 Maarten Dammers :

> Hi Mathieu,
>


> So I see you started forum shopping (trying to get the Wikimedia-l people
> in) and making contentious trying to be funny remarks. That's usually a
> good indication a thread is going nowhere.
>
> No, Wikidata is not going to change the CC0. You seem to be the only
> person wanting that and trying to discredit Wikidata will not help you in
> your crusade. I suggest the people who are still interested in this to go
> to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 and make useful comments
> over there.


I concur totally with analysis.

Regards,

Yann Forget
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Andra Waagmeester]

I agree with Maarten and to add to that. It is a huge misconception that
CC0  makes data unreliable. It is only a legal statement about copyright,
nothing more, nothing less. Statements without proper references and
qualifiers make data unreliable, but Wikidata has a decent mechanism to
capture that needed provenance.

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Maarten Dammers 
wrote:

> Hi Mathieu,
>
> On 04-07-18 11:07, mathieu stumpf guntz wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Le 19/05/2018 à 03:35, Denny Vrandečić a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you have to respect
>>> it transitively. That is one of the reasons a license that requires BY
>>> sucks so hard for data: unlike with text, the attribution requirements grow
>>> very quickly. It is the same as with modified images and collages: it is
>>> not sufficient to attribute the last author, but all contributors have to
>>> be attributed.
>>>
>> If we want our data to be trustable, then we need traceability. That is
>> reporting this chain of sources as extensively as possible, whatever the
>> license require or not as attribution. CC-0 allow to break this
>> traceability, which make an aweful license to whoever is concerned with
>> obtaining reliable data.
>>
> A license is not the way to achieve this. We have references for that.
>
>>
>>> This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a large federation
>>> of data on the web, should publish under CC0.
>>>
>> As long as one aim at making a federation of untrustable data banks,
>> that's perfect. ;)
>>
> So I see you started forum shopping (trying to get the Wikimedia-l people
> in) and making contentious trying to be funny remarks. That's usually a
> good indication a thread is going nowhere.
>
> No, Wikidata is not going to change the CC0. You seem to be the only
> person wanting that and trying to discredit Wikidata will not help you in
> your crusade. I suggest the people who are still interested in this to go
> to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 and make useful comments
> over there.
>
> Maarten
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Maarten Dammers]

Hi Mathieu,

On 04-07-18 11:07, mathieu stumpf guntz wrote:

Hi,

Le 19/05/2018 à 03:35, Denny Vrandečić a écrit :


Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you have to 
respect it transitively. That is one of the reasons a license that 
requires BY sucks so hard for data: unlike with text, the attribution 
requirements grow very quickly. It is the same as with modified 
images and collages: it is not sufficient to attribute the last 
author, but all contributors have to be attributed.
If we want our data to be trustable, then we need traceability. That 
is reporting this chain of sources as extensively as possible, 
whatever the license require or not as attribution. CC-0 allow to 
break this traceability, which make an aweful license to whoever is 
concerned with obtaining reliable data.

A license is not the way to achieve this. We have references for that.


This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a large 
federation of data on the web, should publish under CC0.
As long as one aim at making a federation of untrustable data banks, 
that's perfect. ;)
So I see you started forum shopping (trying to get the Wikimedia-l 
people in) and making contentious trying to be funny remarks. That's 
usually a good indication a thread is going nowhere.


No, Wikidata is not going to change the CC0. You seem to be the only 
person wanting that and trying to discredit Wikidata will not help you 
in your crusade. I suggest the people who are still interested in this 
to go to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 and make useful 
comments over there.


Maarten

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[mathieu stumpf guntz]

Hi,

Le 19/05/2018 à 03:35, Denny Vrandečić a écrit :


Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you have to respect 
it transitively. That is one of the reasons a license that requires BY 
sucks so hard for data: unlike with text, the attribution requirements 
grow very quickly. It is the same as with modified images and 
collages: it is not sufficient to attribute the last author, but all 
contributors have to be attributed.
If we want our data to be trustable, then we need traceability. That is 
reporting this chain of sources as extensively as possible, whatever the 
license require or not as attribution. CC-0 allow to break this 
traceability, which make an aweful license to whoever is concerned with 
obtaining reliable data.


This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a large 
federation of data on the web, should publish under CC0.
As long as one aim at making a federation of untrustable data banks, 
that's perfect. ;)


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[mathieu stumpf guntz]

Hi,


Le 18/05/2018 à 19:45, Info WorldUniversity a écrit :

At a Wikimedia conference in early 2017, with Lydia and Dario present, I
think I learned that all books / WikiCitations in all 301 of Wikipedia
languages could be licensed, or heading to be licensed, with CC-0 licensing
- https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ - and per
- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 - which would allow them to be
data sources for online bookstores even. Is this the case. Could some of
Wikidata's data be licensed with CC-SA-4 (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) and other data be licensed
with CC-0?

I am not sure what you mean here. Regarding citations, our movement 
already faced copyright issues with Wikiquote, see 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee/Subcommittees/Press/2006/03/28_fr.Wikiquote_brief


Cheers

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Denny Vrandečić]

Thank you for your answer, Sebastian.

Publishing the Gutachten would be fantastic! That would be very helpful and
deeply appreciated.

Regarding the relicensing, I agree with you. You can just go and do that,
and given that you ask for attribution to DBpedia, and not to Wikipedia, I
would claim that's what you're doing. And I think that's fine.

Regarding attribution, commonly it is assumed that you have to respect it
transitively. That is one of the reasons a license that requires BY sucks
so hard for data: unlike with text, the attribution requirements grow very
quickly. It is the same as with modified images and collages: it is not
sufficient to attribute the last author, but all contributors have to be
attributed.

This is why I think that whoever wants to be part of a large federation of
data on the web, should publish under CC0.

That is very different from licensing texts or images. But for data
anything else is just weird and will bite is in the long run more than we
might ever benefit.

So, just to say it again: if the Gutachten you mentioned could be made
available, that would be very very awesome!

Thank you, Denny



On Thu, May 17, 2018, 23:06 Sebastian Hellmann <
hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

> Hi Denny,
>
> On 18.05.2018 02:54, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
>
> Rob Speer wrote:
> > The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> > versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> > resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> > Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
> DBPedia
> > and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> > Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state
> "Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active
> through at least one (preferably all) of @href, , or "Link:". If
> live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual
> blurb-based attribution is acceptable."
> http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint
>
> So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it
> is entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.
>
> What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as
> Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your
> own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the
> original source of the extraction.
>
> (A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes
> whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)
>
>
> My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is
> non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a
> different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a
> different attribution) is legally sound.
>
>
> In the SmartDataWeb project https://www.smartdataweb.de/ we hired lawyers
> to write a legal review about the extraction situation. Facts can be
> extracted and republished under CC-0 without problem as is the case of
> infoboxes.. Copying a whole database is a different because database rights
> hold. If you only extract ~ two sentences it falls under citation, which is
> also easy. If it is more than two sentence, then copyright applies.
>
> I can check whether it is ready and shareable. The legal review
> (Gutachten) is quite a big thing as it has some legal relevancy and can be
> cited in court.
>
> Hence we can switch to ODC-BY with facts as CC-0 and the text as
> share-alike. However the attribution mentioned in the imprint is still
> fine, since it is under database and not the content/facts.
> I am still uncertain about the attribution. If you remix and publish you
> need to cite the direct sources. But if somebody takes from you, does he
> only attribute to you or to everybody you used in a transitive way.
>
> Anyhow, we are sharpening the whole model towards technology, not
> data/content. So the databus will be a transparent layer and it is much
> easier to find the source like Wikipedia and Wikidata and do contributions
> there, which is actually one of the intentions of share-alike (getting work
> pushed back/upstream).
>
> All the best,
> Sebastian
>
>
> If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content
> exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been
> followed on Wikidata.
>
> For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata
> project chat and in Phabricator:
>
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wikimedia_projects
>
>
> I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.
>
> Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but
> we need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be,
> for example, as Rob Spe

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Info WorldUniversity, 18/05/2018 20:45:

Wikidata may be heading to
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
which allows for a) sharing b) adapting and even c) commercially


No way. CC-BY-SA-4.0 handles, but doesn't waive, the sui generis 
database rights. It might be fine for folks in USA, but it would leave 
EU people under water.


Federico

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Jo]

share alike will mean that data can't be imported into OpenStreetMap as it
uses ODBL. Not that it matters much, the data can't be imported for other
reasons as well.

Polyglot

2018-05-18 19:45 GMT+02:00 Info WorldUniversity <
i...@worlduniversityandschool.org>:

> Hi Mathieu, Rob, Denny, and Wikidatans,
>
> I'm writing to inquire about further Wikidata CC licensing
> clarifications.
>
>
> Wikidata may be heading to
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
> which allows for a) sharing b) adapting and even c) commercially
>
> MIT OCW uses, by way of comparison,
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
> which allows for a) sharing b) adapting but c) non-commercially
>
>
> At a Wikimedia conference in early 2017, with Lydia and Dario present, I
> think I learned that all books / WikiCitations in all 301 of Wikipedia
> languages could be licensed, or heading to be licensed, with CC-0
> licensing - https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/
> - and per - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 - which would allow
> them to be data sources for online bookstores even. Is this the case. Could
> some of Wikidata's data be licensed with CC-SA-4 (
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) and other data be
> licensed with CC-0?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers, Scott
>
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Rob Speer  wrote:
>
>> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
>> enemy of science and knowledge
>>
>> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>>
>> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
>> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
>> multiple
>> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
>> by CC-By-SA.
>>
>> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
>> CC-By-SA.
>> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
>> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding
>> us
>> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
>> us follow it", etc.
>>
>> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
>> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
>> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
>> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
>> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
>> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hoi,
>> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright
>> is
>> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
>> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
>> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from
>> everywhere
>> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
>> >
>> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
>> Wikipedia,
>> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
>> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
>> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do
>> as
>> > well as "we" do it.
>> >
>> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few
>> things
>> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
>> uploaded
>> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
>> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
>> > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
>> copyright
>> > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
>> > annoying.
>> >
>> > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
>> > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
>> > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
>> there
>> > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good
>> because it
>> > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is
>> superior
>> > as a tool for disambiguation.
>> >
>> > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do
>> you
>> > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
>> > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
>> is
>> > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
>> > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
>> the
>> > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
>> notion
>> > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs
>> attention.
>> > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
>> > credentials. That is in i

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Info WorldUniversity]

Hi Mathieu, Rob, Denny, and Wikidatans,

I'm writing to inquire about further Wikidata CC licensing clarifications.


Wikidata may be heading to
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
which allows for a) sharing b) adapting and even c) commercially

MIT OCW uses, by way of comparison,
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
which allows for a) sharing b) adapting but c) non-commercially


At a Wikimedia conference in early 2017, with Lydia and Dario present, I
think I learned that all books / WikiCitations in all 301 of Wikipedia
languages could be licensed, or heading to be licensed, with CC-0 licensing
- https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ - and per
- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728 - which would allow them to be
data sources for online bookstores even. Is this the case. Could some of
Wikidata's data be licensed with CC-SA-4 (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) and other data be licensed
with CC-0?

Thanks.

Cheers, Scott


On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Rob Speer  wrote:

> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
> enemy of science and knowledge
>
> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>
> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> by CC-By-SA.
>
> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> us follow it", etc.
>
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> >
> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> Wikipedia,
> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> > well as "we" do it.
> >
> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> uploaded
> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
> copyright
> > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> > annoying.
> >
> > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
> > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
> > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
> there
> > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because
> it
> > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
> > as a tool for disambiguation.
> >
> > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
> > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
> is
> > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
> the
> > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
> notion
> > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
> > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> > credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
> > moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
> > the copyright held on databases.
> >
> > I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
> our
> > attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> > around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
> > Wikidata shines wh

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you imply that I do not support Creative Commons and its work on
licenses, you are explicitly wrong. It is because of the CC that a
harmonisation has taken place. It it thanks to this harmonisation that a
lot of material gained a license, becoming accessible. This does not mean
that the practice of copyright is not evil, it means that thanks to CC
copyright became less open to abuse.

I am old school Wikipedia. I strongly believe that our mission is to "share
the sum of all knowledge". When people like you aim to claim copyright on
Wikipedia articles, you do not argue how this would play. You do not
consider how this is a knife that cuts both ways and most prominently will
hinder our quest to share the sum of all knowledge to all people. When a
company abuses our content by ignoring the license, they gain a public for
our content. When this is done right, we benefit; there is a symbiotic
relation with Google for instance. The only disadvantage happens when
because of a lack of attribution people do not come to Wikipedia or
Wikidata to curate the data. Practically the whole license issue of
Wikipedia is a mess because it is not enforced and because there are too
many copyright warriors claiming that things should be different, never
stop arguing  and never coming to a practical point.

What I am saying is that when multiple sources claim the same thing, it
follows that any and all of them can not claim exclusive copyright to it.
For me the databus that DBpeida will show how little is original in
databases. On the one hand this is cool because it will indicate that such
things are likely correct on the other hand it is cool because it will
indicate what to curate in order to gain a better understanding. It also
follows that in order to bring things into doubt, you must publish facts
and strongly support the underlying data in order to be noticed. This is
why the work on the gender gap is so important. This is why work needs to
be done where all of us / all the databases are weak. This is why fake news
is so easy, there is nothing that easily finds where the data goes off the
rails.

 so then we get to  This is why we need the databus of
DBpedia, this is why we should stop mocking DBpedia and collaborate with
them in stead of what some say: "everything you can do, we can do better".
The fact of the matter is that they do what we might do and we have to
learn to collaborate.

Now why would you use Wikidata when DBpedia by definition can include all
of Wikidata and is better equipped to bring all the data together? You
would because it is not the copyright, it is superior functionality.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 17 May 2018 at 17:39, Rob Speer  wrote:

> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
> enemy of science and knowledge
>
> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>
> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> by CC-By-SA.
>
> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> us follow it", etc.
>
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> >
> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> Wikipedia,
> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> > well as "we" do it.
> >
> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> uploaded
> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> > consequence there 

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Sebastian Hellmann]

Hi Denny,


On 18.05.2018 02:54, Denny Vrandečić wrote:

Rob Speer wrote:
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?

The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state
"Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active 
through at least one (preferably all) of @href, , or "Link:". 
If live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual 
blurb-based attribution is acceptable."

http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint

So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, 
it is entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.


What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as 
Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as 
your own dataset under your own copyright without requiring 
attribution to the original source of the extraction.


(A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also 
republishes whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's 
another story)


My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from 
Wikipedia is non-copyrightable in the first place and thus 
republishing it under a different license (or, as in the case of 
DBpedia for simple triples, with a different attribution) is legally 
sound.


In the SmartDataWeb project https://www.smartdataweb.de/ we hired 
lawyers to write a legal review about the extraction situation. Facts 
can be extracted and republished under CC-0 without problem as is the 
case of infoboxes.. Copying a whole database is a different because 
database rights hold. If you only extract ~ two sentences it falls under 
citation, which is also easy. If it is more than two sentence, then 
copyright applies.


I can check whether it is ready and shareable. The legal review 
(Gutachten) is quite a big thing as it has some legal relevancy and can 
be cited in court.


Hence we can switch to ODC-BY with facts as CC-0 and the text as 
share-alike. However the attribution mentioned in the imprint is still 
fine, since it is under database and not the content/facts.
I am still uncertain about the attribution. If you remix and publish you 
need to cite the direct sources. But if somebody takes from you, does he 
only attribute to you or to everybody you used in a transitive way.


Anyhow, we are sharpening the whole model towards technology, not 
data/content. So the databus will be a transparent layer and it is much 
easier to find the source like Wikipedia and Wikidata and do 
contributions there, which is actually one of the intentions of 
share-alike (getting work pushed back/upstream).


All the best,
Sebastian



If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which 
content exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license 
has not been followed on Wikidata.


For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata 
project chat and in Phabricator:


https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wikimedia_projects 



I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.

Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, 
but we need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it 
should be, for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the 
copyright of interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to 
Wikidata?", I'd be quite happy with that question - if that's the 
disagreement, let us ask Legal help and see if my understanding or 
yours is correct.


Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question 
would you like to ask instead?



On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer > wrote:


> As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that
copyright is the
enemy of science and knowledge

Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.

I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike
term,
which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
multiple
Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be
protected
by CC-By-SA.

Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
CC-By-SA.
I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the
attitude
toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's
holding us
back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you
can't make
us follow it", etc.

The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell
modified
ver

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Denny Vrandečić]

Rob Speer wrote:
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?

The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state
"Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active
through at least one (preferably all) of @href, , or "Link:". If
live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual
blurb-based attribution is acceptable."
http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint

So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it is
entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.

What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as
Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your
own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the
original source of the extraction.

(A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes
whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)

My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is
non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a
different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a
different attribution) is legally sound.

If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content
exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been
followed on Wikidata.

For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata
project chat and in Phabricator:

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wikimedia_projects


I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.

Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we
need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be,
for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the copyright of
interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to Wikidata?", I'd be
quite happy with that question - if that's the disagreement, let us ask
Legal help and see if my understanding or yours is correct.

Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question would
you like to ask instead?


On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer  wrote:

> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
> enemy of science and knowledge
>
> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>
> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> by CC-By-SA.
>
> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> us follow it", etc.
>
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> >
> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> Wikipedia,
> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> > well as "we" do it.
> >
> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> uploaded
> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
> copyright
> > holder can do as we wants. 

Re: [Wikidata] [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.

In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use Wikipedia,
it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
well as "we" do it.

When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be uploaded
(Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the copyright
holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that, annoying.

As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view there
is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because it
is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
as a tool for disambiguation.

About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that is
corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of the
data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the notion
that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
the copyright held on databases.

I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However our
attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to be
used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
Thanks,
   GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-data.html

On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer  wrote:

> Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects that
> change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no idea
> that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative Commons
> violation is coming from inside the house!
>
> On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
> >  that you might be interested
> > to look at and participate in.
> >
> > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the
> > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > <
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> >
> > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata