It is simply a very complex subject with lots of grey and very little clarity.
While nearly everybody will agree to "fact(s) are not copyrightable" in the singular, in the plural it becomes tricky, from UK sweat of the brow doctrine to EU database rights. Now the WMF has consistently supported that facts are not copyrightable, so there should not be any danger there, historically however OSM has been careful about copying from wikipedia nonetheless because wikipedia sources have been questionable. Likely this is not an issue in this specific case. Simon Am 18.10.2014 21:00, schrieb Tom Lee: > Tom, > > Licenses like CC and ODbL can only apply to copyrighted material, which > must generally be a specific creative expression in a fixed medium. You > can't copyright facts, nor opinions. > > Assuming you don't have some crazy natural language processing workflow > in mind, you'll only be using the ideas expressed in that Wikipedia text > rather than their specific expression. These are not protected by > copyright nor any derived license, so you should be free to use them. I > am not a lawyer--by all means listen to the wisdom of others on this > list--but I believe that there shouldn't be any licensing considerations > present. > > (also) Tom > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:00 AM, <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Send legal-talk mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of legal-talk digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Using description from wikipedia text (Tom Gregorovic) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:15:50 +0200 > From: Tom Gregorovic <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Using description from wikipedia text > Message-ID: > > <CADETX0_BZrj3-iPj7iXHfYsb5PtnP754Mw=hsxfmmk-tcai...@mail.gmail.com > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Dear all, > I just want to ask here, if it is legal and does not violate the OSM > license to map > mountain ranges according to text description of its borders from > wikipedia articles (e.g. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelengora#Topography). I would combine it > with contours/relief map of OpenCycleMap and mentioned rivers and peaks > from OSM to approximately estimate area of the mountain range. > > Thanks, > > Tom Gregorovic > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > ------------------------------ > > End of legal-talk Digest, Vol 96, Issue 3 > ***************************************** > > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
