On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> Wikipedia is not about infoboxes, they are (and are intended to be) a > small to very small part of the article in most cases. Similarly, > Wikipedias are not databases, so also without being a lawyer, I think your > interpretation is wrong. If you look at the Meta document I linked, you'll find that the definition of a database provided there is quite broad: ---o0o--- From a legal perspective, a database is any organized collection of materials — hard copy or electronic — that permits a user to search for and access individual pieces of information contained within the materials. No database software, as a programmer would understand it, is necessary. In the US, for example, Black’s Law Dictionary defines a database as a "compilation of information arranged in a systematic way and offering a means of finding specific elements it contains, often today by electronic means."[1] Databases may be protected by US copyright law as "compilations." In the EU, databases are protected by the Database Directive, which defines a database as "a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means." ---o0o--- You could argue that the sum of Wikipedia's harvestable infoboxes, templates etc. constitutes a database, according to those definitions. There is also the argument about the benefit of attribution, as opposed to having data appear out of nowhere in a way that is completely opaque to end users. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hoi, > The CC-0 license was set up with the express reason that everybody can use > our data without any impediment. Our objective is to share in the sum of > all knowledge and we are more effective in that way. > > We do not care about market dominance, we care about doing our utmost to > have the best data available. Are these not just well-worn platitudes? If you cared so much about quality, you or someone else would have fixed the Grasulf II of Friuli entry by now. > On 18 December 2015 at 09:05, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Gerard, > > > > Of course you can't license or copyright facts, but as the WMF legal > team's > > page on this topic[1] outlines, there are database and compilation rights > > that exist independently of copyright. IANAL, but as I read that page, if > > you simply go ahead and copy all the infobox, template etc. content from > a > > Wikipedia, this "would likely be a violation" even under US law (not to > > mention EU law). > > > > I don't know why Wikipedia was set up with a CC BY-SA licence rather > than a > > CC0 licence, and the attribution required under CC BY-SA is unduly > > cumbersome, but attribution has always seemed to me like a useful > concept. > > The fact that people like VDM Publishing who sell Wikipedia articles as > > books are required to say that their material comes from Wikipedia is > > useful, for example. > > > > Naturally it fosters re-use if you make Wikidata CC0, but that's > precisely > > the point: you end up with a level of "market dominance" that just ain't > > healthy. > > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
