subject:"\[Wikidata\-bugs\] \[Maniphest\] \[Commented On\] T193728\: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata"

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 monopoly on factual data.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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" entries. So I would say "imported from" gives us an over-count of "bot" work, if that's the main issue here. Or is thousands of individuals adding these entries by hand also a concern?


Yes, it doesn't matter whether transfer is done by bots or manual work, the point is whether the transfer is significant whatever the mean.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-27 Thread TomT0m

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 (and most likely) many other prose
 variations. And if you would include predicates extracted from fanfictions
 from different sources and unsourced predicates around Harry Potter
 universe including potentially completely novel ones, that would probably
 be a even more closely corresponding analogy with the current state of
 Wikidata.

*This is rather unrealistic at this point and unrelated to my point. The

question raised is rather : Wikipedia has an infobox. Wikidata has the same
informations compared to that infobox, but it was not imported but rebuilt
from scratch by a user. *

This rather unrealistic at this point and unrelated to my point. The

question raised is rather : Wikipedia has an infobox. Wikidata has the same
informations compared to that infobox, but it was not imported but rebuilt
from scratch by a user.

Question: is the fact that it was rebuilt relevant to copyright or only
matters the fact that the informations are the same ?
I'd tend to think that the equality of information is the key, which would
mitigates kind of a lot the relevance of discussing eternally the fact they
were or not copied from a Wikipedia.

Said differently: the fact that the informations are in Wikipedia would
prevent to have them in Wikidata or any other database.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: TomT0mCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 interesting question, but I'd rather focus now on answering the question that is directly pertinent to this ticket.


I agree, this part was off topic and intended to give more background on my thoughts.

So, given the discussion as it has been going, I hope that the following questions sound good to everyone:


Can you comment on the practice of having processes that in bulk extract facts from Wikipedia articles, which are published under CC-BY-SA, and store the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?
Particular sets of facts we are interested in to consider would be: a) interwiki links, b) facts extracted from infobox templates, c) facts extracted from prose through natural language processing.
What, if anything, may be imported from ODBL licensed databases like OSM into Wikidata, and republished under CC-0?

If I don't hear back by the mid of the next week, I'm going to raise these as the questions we would kindly ask to be answered. I find the questions are already getting quite heavyweight - any ways to shorten them would be appreciated.


I would add to 2. at least "category trees". Also "graph of internal links" and "structure of Project: namespaces" come to my mind.

Otherwise I totally agree with this set of questions, thank you for coming with them.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 matter if we actually imported datas or it happens we
 substancially have the same result by over means.


My understanding is that we are in a rather different case with Wikidata. It would be more like we would consider fine to aim at extracting every single predicate possible out of Harry Potter books and release them under CC-0. That mean that you could potentially indeed rebuild the very same set of books with a prose automaton, but also (and most likely) many other prose variations. And if you would include predicates extracted from fanfictions from different sources and unsourced predicates around Harry Potter universe including potentially completely novel ones, that would probably be a even more closely corresponding analogy with the current state of Wikidata.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-27 Thread Lydia_Pintscher

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 DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Lydia_PintscherCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 consequences than any other license. The point is, can Wikidata really pretend that what it publishes is under CC-0 when its sources are themselves published under incompatible terms of use and licenses.

Apart from this, which is the topic we currently focus on this ticket, here is is a few off topic background reflections:

It's one thing to aim that any project financed by any government should be public domain, or in an equivalent legal status of CC-0. It happens that many scientific studies are financed by public funds. In this cases, their are argument to support that it's fair to release them with this kind of condition as public paid for it and scientists got a financial retribution for their work of data collection. The only nuance we could bring to that would be about data traceability, which arise from very different concerns than the ones that conducted to enact copyright & sisters information monopolies, a topic which is a raising concern in a world where fake news is on everyone's lips.

Now, in the Wikimedia movement, this is not how it is. Most contributors  are volunteers, and no mandatory annual tax make it obvious that the next year there will still be plenty of money  to support our infrastructure whatever other actors are providing as service. If we consider fine to transfer the whole collection of statements of every Wikipedia into Wikidata, then you can expect other actors to generate encyclopaedic articles using natural language generation from Wikidata derivative databases augmented with statements and means we don't have  access to, under whichever terms of use they like – most probably under licenses with CC-0. As stated in the previous link the main requirement for implementing NLG is the ownership and access to a structured dataset. We can add that it also requires an adapted infrastructure and skilled people to glue the whole. A copyleft license do bring some sustainability to fate of volunteer communities and their common work that a non-copyleft license fails to provide. With that in mind, how is it different in spirit to put no clear limits of transfer of data between all Wikimedia projects into a single CC-0 project than re-licensing all this projects under CC-0?

So this question us on whether we are more concerned about making the Wikimedia community growth in a sustainable way or maximizing immediate re-use of the works it generated so far, and what are the best  technical and legal tools to achieve whichever we are aiming for.

https://pietercolpaert.be/open%20data/2017/02/23/cc0.html
 "However, for data on the Web, the borders between data silos are fading and queries are evaluated over plenty of databases. Then requiring that each dataset is mentioned in the user interface is just annoying end-users."

Well, law is often annoying for end-users in immediate situations, but lake of law can be even more detrimental on large scale. So it's not really a convincing argument to promote waiver the corresponding rights, is it? Yes, requiring people to recognize each other significance in their own actions is an additional constraint compared to request them to waiver any form of recognition, but certainly can not be reduced to a useless annoying demand as it comes hand in hand with respect of individual dignity.

Even we we are favourable to public domain for works resulting from public funding, we don't have to approve this kind of argument stated under such a form which are basically promoting regression of recognition for everyone dignity.

"The share alike requirement, as the name implies, requires that when reusing a document, you share the resulting document under the same license. I like the idea for “viral” licenses and the fact that all results from this document will now also become open data. However, what does it mean exactly for an answer that is generated on the basis of 2 or more datasets? And what if one of these datasets would be a private dataset (e.g., a user profile)? It thus would make it even more unnecessarily complex to reuse data, while the goal was to maximize the reuse of our dataset."

The "viral" word is itself a terminology designed to conduct noxious innuendos. Talking about inheritance as biological analogy is a both more neutral and more relevant, as only derivative works are concerned and they foster the original work beyond itself.

What it legally implies to use 2 datasets depends of the two datasets. If this is two datasets of a few items, it probably implies nothing legally because they don't generate any monopoly in the first place. If each dataset are under a legal information monopoly, then it implies that you can only mix them if you were granted

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-27 Thread Mateusz_Konieczny

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 PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Mateusz_KoniecznyCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-26 Thread Psychoslave

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 traceability of chain of sources and their corresponding licenses, user of Wikidata
would still be able to compile datasets of any form and content with the query service, and re-use it according to the licenses of this data. Or if they prefer to ignore it, not take them into account. Actually, as long as you don't aim at republishing this data, you will probably face no legal problem. But if someone want to use data, they have to conform to the last publisher in the source chain that published them through legal means. If this reuser don't want to follow this condition, then indeed they can not use this data legally from this source.

If there was a convolution of individual licenses per fact involved, it would be practically impossible to get this sorted so that use of data was in line with all the licenses involved; even if one would be able to manage this, one could easily end up in a situation where one has to display thousands of sources in some way. Databases with more restrictive licenses than CC0 are useless for re-users, and Wikidata just aims to be useful for re-users.

This argument doesn't hold. Either you are able to prove that your data set where obtained from legal means, and then you will have to have this traceability of sources and their corresponding legal terms of use, or it is practically impossible to reuse this data legally.

For re-user who really care about legality, this kind of legal traceability is a requirement. Maybe you personally don't like other licenses, but it doesn't make project using different licenses useless.

So please provide concrete real world examples where CC-0 made something possible that would have been impossible with proper license traceability. Because there are real practical case like OSM where this lake of traceability make Wikidata useless.

Where is the official statement of the WMF about significant transfer from copyrighted data banks that are not released under CC-0 into a CC-0 data bank? What are the threshold not to exceed if any? Until there are official statements on this regard, each individual is sole responsible for its inferences and they only apply to their own personal beliefs.

For the moment, the closest we have to an official statement is this conclusion of the Wikimedia Foundation’s preliminary perspective on data base legal issue:

Whenever possible, the best course is to use only content that is made available by the author under an open license. In particular, for EU databases, the license should include a license or express waiver of the sui generis database right. In the absence of a license, copying all or a substantial part of a protected database should be avoided. Extraction and use of data should be kept to a minimum and limited to unprotected material, such as uncopyrightable facts and short phrases, rather than extensive text. For EU databases, bots or other automated ways of extracting data should also be avoided because of the Directive’s prohibition on “repeated and systematic extraction” of even insubstantial amounts of data.

How could this be interpreted ortherwise than "Wikidata should avoid to import data under an incompatible licenses, either by not importing it, or by conforming to the licenses of its sources"?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-26 Thread Mateusz_Konieczny

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 DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Mateusz_KoniecznyCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-26 Thread ArthurPSmith

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 us an over-count of "bot" work, if that's the main issue here. Or is thousands of individuals adding these entries by hand also a concern?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: ArthurPSmithCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-25 Thread MisterSynergy

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 there are on average ~0.66 imports per Wikipedia article (based on the fact that we have ~42M “imported from” references and ~64M sitelinks in Wikidata). The CC-BY-SA license applies to the works of individual Wikipedia articles, so a proper definition of “bulk extract” in the context of those numbers would be very important.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: MisterSynergyCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-25 Thread Denny

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 on answering the question that is directly pertinent to this ticket.

So, given the discussion as it has been going, I hope that the following questions sound good to everyone:


Can you comment on the practice of having processes that in bulk extract facts from Wikipedia articles, which are published under CC-BY-SA, and store the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?



Particular sets of facts we are interested in to consider would be: a) interwiki links, b) facts extracted from infobox templates, c) facts extracted from prose through natural language processing.



What, if anything, may be imported from ODBL licensed databases like OSM into Wikidata, and republished under CC-0?


If I don't hear back by the mid of the next week, I'm going to raise these as the questions we would kindly ask to be answered. I find the questions are already getting quite heavyweight - any ways to shorten them would be appreciated.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-25 Thread Micru

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 asset of our movement is not money donation, but its community which give time and efforts in misc. contributions.


Not what I was trying to explain, but thanks for pointing it out because it gives me the chance to try again to make more clear my point. Two different CC licenses:


CC-BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike), this one exists already, and the terms are basically that you must give appropriate credit and you must use the same license. You are free to share and adapt.
Contribute Alike (to a common space), this one does not exists. The proposed terms are that you must contribute to the common public space as much value as you are taking from it, and when you do so you have the rights to use the material. Whatever you release based on the original material can be in turn used by anyone who also has contributed to the common space the same ammount of perceived value.


The advantages are:


It creates a snowball effect by incentivating to contribute in order to use existing materials
It is more fair because what I donate to the common space will be matched by others


The disadvantages are:


It requires assigning a (virtual) value both to the data, services, files provided and to the ones received. And also keeping track of the "payments" in kind.
The person/organization wanting to use the data might not have anything of value for the commons (but still it could be annotated as "debt" to the community)


I invite you to let it sink in, and imagine how it could work in practice at a large scale.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: MicruCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Aschmidt, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-25 Thread ArthurPSmith

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 cover creatively selected or arranged compilations of facts and creative database design and structure, and some jurisdictions like those in the European Union have enacted additional sui generis laws that restrict uses of databases without regard for applicable copyright law. CC0 is intended to cover all copyright and database rights, so that however data and databases are restricted (under copyright or otherwise), those rights are all surrendered"

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7261/full/461171a.html
"Although it is usual practice for major public databases to make data freely available to access and use, any restrictions on use should be strongly resisted and we endorse explicit encouragement of open sharing, for example under the newly available CC0 public domain waiver of Creative Commons."

https://blog.datadryad.org/2011/10/05/why-does-dryad-use-cc0/
"Dryad’s policy ultimately follows the recommendations of Science Commons, which discourage researchers from presuming copyright and using licenses that include “attribution” and “share-alike” conditions for scientific data.

Both of these conditions can put legitimate users in awkward positions.  First, specifying how “attribution” must be carried out may put a user at odds with accepted citation practice:

“when you federate a query from 50,000 databases (not now, perhaps, but definitely within the 70-year duration of copyright!) will you be liable to a lawsuit if you don’t formally attribute all 50,000 owners?” Science Commons Database Protocol FAQ)

While “share-alike” conditions create their own unnecessary legal tangle:

“ ‘share-alike’ licenses typically impose the condition that some or all derivative products be identically licensed. Such conditions have been known to create significant “license compatibility” problems under existing license schemes that employ them. In the context of data, license compatibility problems will likely create significant barriers for data integration and reuse for both providers and users of data.” (Science Commons Database Protocol FAQ)

Thus,

“… given the potential for significantly negative unintended consequences of using copyright, the size of the public domain, and the power of norms inside science, we believe that copyright licenses and contractual restrictions are simply the wrong tool [for data], even if those licenses and contracts are used with the best of intentions.” (Science Commons Database Protocol FAQ)"

https://pietercolpaert.be/open%20data/2017/02/23/cc0.html
"Requiring that you mention the source of the dataset in each application that reuses my data, still complies to the Open Definition. There is no need to argue with anyone that uses for example the CC BY license: you will only have the annoying obligation that you have to mention the name in a user interface. This is useful for datasets which are closely tied to their document or database: when for example reusing and republishing a spreadsheet, I can understand you will want that someone attributes you for created that spreadsheet. However, for data on the Web, the borders between data silos are fading and queries are evaluated over plenty of databases. Then requiring that each dataset is mentioned in the user interface is just annoying end-users."
"The share alike requirement, as the name implies, requires that when reusing a document, you share the resulting document under the same license. I like the idea for “viral” licenses and the fact that all results from this document will now also become open data. However, what does it mean exactly for an answer that is generated on the basis of 2 or more datasets? And what if one of these datasets would be a private dataset (e.g., a user profile)? It thus would make it even more unnecessarily complex to reuse data, while the goal was to maximize the reuse of our dataset."TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: ArthurPSmithCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-25 Thread MisterSynergy

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, since anything else that required attribution would render it useless; large-scale purging would tear down so much content that we would basically have to start again from the beginning. We are 5.5 years into this project and many of us have spent thousands of hours of effort into it, based on the unchallenged assumption (by WMF) that Wikipedia imports as we are doing them are legally fine.

How would it render it useless? Or more useless than today? For some actors like OSM it is useless because they don't trust Wikidata claim that this data can legally be released under CC-0. For those who don't care about acting legally, any license will make the same effect.

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). If there was a convolution of individual licenses per fact involved, it would be practically impossible to get this sorted so that use of data was in line with all the licenses involved; even if one would be able to manage this, one could easily end up in a situation where one has to display thousands of sources in some way. Databases with more restrictive licenses than CC0 are useless for re-users, and Wikidata just aims to be useful for re-users.

I agree that we should ensure to put only compatible data into Wikidata, yet I am still not convinced that there is a systematic problem. From my point of view, there is no concern about the validity of Wikidata’s declaration that all content (in main and property namespace) is available under the CC0 license.

Is there any official claim by the WMF that said this kind of import were legally fine? Before Wikidata was launched, @Denny used to agree that Wikipedia imports would not be possible including for legal reasons, that is at the time he was officially working for WMDE. If any official statement clearly exposed otherwise in the mid-time, it would be nice to highlight this information. Not being challenged by some entity doesn't mean what an action is legal, just as any legal infraction it doesn't become more legal because no one bother challenging the issue.

We use imports from Wikidata for years now, and this is not a hidden activity than one could have missed. WMF definitely knows about this for years. There were occasionally some dissenting opinions (not by WMF, AFAIK), but I cannot remember that anyone was able to raise concern strong enough to reconsider the import practice. Until now, this has not changed in this conversation as well.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: MisterSynergyCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of 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 in the same way as writing an article, but it is still a contribution which is also necessary to keep the project alive.


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 asset of our movement is not money donation, but its community which give time and efforts in misc. contributions.

As for the original purpose of the ticket it seems that we will have to wait for legal advice. Or if we want to have it more clear then the WMF could sue WMDE for copyright infringement and see what the court decision would be :-)

No, it's not possible, because WMF don't hold copyright on Wikipedia content, and is actually the entity publishing the possibly infringing copyrighted material.

And even if it would be possible, I personally wouldn't like to see such a move. I agree that it might be interesting in the extent that it would give a clear indication of what is possible or not:


but I'm not sure of how such a move could be already framed upstream by a contract designed to not harm any party whatever the decision made downstream by an official judgement,
I'm not sure this would be really great in term of image.
TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Psychoslave added a comment.

Once again, among the obvious solutions, indicating the license of sources would require no deletion. That would allow those who care about license issues to filter data with this criteria, and those who don't care to ignore it. What would be the argument against such a field addition?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 example of London, the French Wikipedia do have an article with this specific title, whose English interlang link to "London (disambiguation)", and not to "London". So even with such a basic example, there are clearly choices that were made.

Thus said, the "original selection" pertains to the whole set, rather than hand picked little selections. Actually I'v just been told that the important number of contributors would plead all the more in favour of the originality (which must not be confused with novelty).TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-25 Thread TomT0m

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, 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 matter if we actually imported datas or it happens we
substancially have the same result by over means.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: TomT0mCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 single topic at a time, like several suggested, including you. So for know, we might concentrate on USA copyright and how "original selection" might raise concern or not. Structure of the database is a different topic.

Regarding the translations: we are talking about the labels of things in different languages? They are not even necessarily translations, mind you - it is often "there was an article on the German Wikipedia, here's an article on the English Wikipedia, let's connect these two". In general, most titles were not translated. Also, in many of those cases it is hard to argue for any threshold of creativity - the fact that 'London' is called 'Londres' in Frech is rather un-creative, and merely stating a fact.

Well, sure, some are more close to the mere well known convention, some ask more reflection. Obviously no language pair will have a bijective relationship of terms nor existing convention for bridge between all of them.

Also, technically, these are not translations in Wikidata, but labels of an entity in different languages.

I would be surprised if the multilingual labels of the Wikidata entities would trigger copyright, but even if it did, there is nothing in the current Wikipedias that would allow for this copyright to take effect: i.e. if we look at an entry such as Q23780914 - highly visible entry, labels in 50+ languages - there never existed anything in the Wikipedias which might have been under copyright.

Or am I missing something here?

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?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-25 Thread Nemo_bis

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, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 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 license that does not allow the dataset to be reshared.

Now just because it happens that we can reproduce that list from Wikidata with a SPARQL query should not mean that we have to act in any way.

On the other side, if we had used that list to import the data - then that would in my understanding be a breach of the rights of that company. But if we did not and the result happens to be the same - well, that's how it is.

If the example is too simple, it could be easily extended to be larger and more substantial. My argument would still be the same.

What do you think?


I think this is a point where we all seem to agree: the problem is not equality of result, but provenance of data. Data that were collected out of many sources into Wikidata without using a significant part of any of each single source don't seem to be a source of concern.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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.
We should enforce that.
We should document the licenses of imported databases.
We should remove data that has been imported from databases which are licensed under a license incompatible with CC-0.

That would be my answers. I don't expect you to disagree with that.

I partially agree.

First let's recall that removing this data is not the only possibility.

For what I understand, just adding a "license" field to sources and filling both the provenance and its license properly would be perfectly fine. I've (informally) been confirmed that by the lawyer I was already referring to. Note that with such a solution, it would still be possible to claim CC-0 for any item which was included in a compatible manner.

An other solution would be to migrate them to an other separated Wikibase instance, each with a compatible license. Of course this instances should offer the same accessibility within the Wikimedia environment.

That lead me to this question:

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 certainly should be answered and seriously documented along the corresponding drawbacks of such a sate of affair. Thus said, this question is off topic regarding the current ticket, and can be safely ignored until a ticket on this specific topic is open (if none is already existing).

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?

What do you think?

I'm fine with this question.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 issue: I think we will all agree here that pure facts can be used by anyone (beyond private life one).


Well, discussing face to face with a professional lawyer specialised on free licenses didn't led me toward the same conclusion of "it's clear there is no problem", unfortunately. Apparently there might be possibilities of "class action" on copyright infringement. She said she could provide more information later, I will forward that to confirm/infirm the validity of that concern.

I think that to go on, we should avoid assertions about "use of pure facts by anyone", the vagueness of this formulae doesn't help. We should first agree that the problem is really about "substantial transfer of data", which is already equivocal enough without us adding more ambiguity to the topic.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-24 Thread Micru

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 and its needs evolve. I consider more interesting to think about what we would like to achieve eventually, and see how the CC licenses/law (present or future) can assist us in that mission.

In my view Wikipedia/OSM and Wikidata have different philosophies. Wikipedia/OSM rely on their identity to guarantee their existence. Under their brand people gather to "create" content (actually Wikipedia builds on top of other people efforts, but let's not get there now) that can be shared by anyone as long as they attribute the brand. Wikidata on the other hand is purely selfless, there is no need to "pay" for the data with attribution (a kind of gratitude).

While both approaches seem ok in principle, what I would like as a volunteer, and member of the open knowledge ecosystem is to have access to all knowledge. I want to be able to enjoy the freedom of belonging to this movement by sharing my time, energies, and effort to make it thrive. However, I do not want that my effort is duplicated, I want that what I "create" in one website can be reused by all the members of this ecosystem without restriction. It's fine if when I step outside of this bubble other rules apply, but within the bubble of open knowledge I expect as much brotherhood and collaboration as possible.

There would not be the need to talk about licenses if Wikidata would let OSM handle all geographic information, and would integrate more tightly with their systems to allow transclusion. Why does Wikidata need to get into OSM territory when they can do the geographic data handling much better?

Going back to the subject of copyright law, I would like to point out that it was created with a certain paradigm in mind and that we should not restrict ourselves by it. We can still play by the existing rules while creating a different game. In my opinion data release would be more interesting for data creators if we could give them "something" in exchange for their data. We cannot offer them attribution, or money, but we could give them permission to access more data by organizations that have contributed it under the same rules. What we need is not a "share-alike" license, but rather a "contribute-alike" license so that there is more incentive in enriching the commons. Also as a volunteer I find more fair if people who use my work also contribute with their work.

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 in the same way as writing an article, but it is still a contribution which is also necessary to keep the project alive.

As for the original purpose of the ticket it seems that we will have to wait for legal advice. Or if we want to have it more clear then the WMF could sue WMDE for copyright infringement and see what the court decision would be :-)TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: MicruCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-23 Thread Psychoslave

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, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-23 Thread TomT0m

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 this conversation in other
places.

You can add anything to the licences terms, but if the law do not give you
the power to act on that unything the clause is illegal, hence ignored by
courts. In this case, the existence of the licence depends on the copyright
law. So the things you can act on are the precise « rights » the copyrights
defines, and nothing more. If you add an out of scope clause in a CC, it’s
not relevant.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: TomT0mCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-22 Thread Cirdan

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 create encyclopedic articles. If done properly, i.e. most notably not by directly copying texts, this is not a copyright issue, because facts cannot be copyrighted.

More generally, however, rephrasing is not sufficient. If I write an original book and you publish a rephrased version of that book, there is still a copyright issue there, because I hold the rights to the story and the precise way it is told. This is why a Wikipedia article as a whole can be copyright protected even though the information contained therein is not. There are certainly small Wikipedia articles which are just a collection of facts and can likely be considered without copyright protection because they do not reach the threshold required for an original work (at least under German jurisdiction that is the case), but longer articles where information had to be carefully selected and weighted are original works.

In which way is it different from doing the same with any content and rebranding it as CC0?

Take the example of the book I wrote again: While individual sentences and bits of information are not protected, the way a collection of facts is organized can be protected. This is why in certain jurisdictions data collections and databases have been or currently are subject to copyright laws, which in turn is why we are having this discussion here.

The very strict policy of OSM (see e.g. here) is a good example to understand this problem.

If there are cases where copyright law permits the extraction of information from copyrighted texts, then this applies to CC-BY-SA licensed texts as well, so there is no need to change CC-BY-SA to extract information from Wikipedia.

That would be ideal.

This task is about figuring out what is allowed and what is not, and the questions agreed on will hopefully shed some light onto this issue.

It's not a "clarification", it would constitute a retroactive conversion of CC-BY-SA into a license which is effectively CC-0. As we have explained to you multiple times now, that is not possible without consent of every single contributor of a copyright protected text to Wikipedia and it is highly doubtful that a majority of Wikipedians (or the WMF) is interested in converting Wikipedia to CC-0.

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 this conversation in other places.

CC licences are built within the framework of current copyright law. It is not necessary and in fact would probably be quite problematic to add terms to the license which simply reiterate parts of the law in a different wording.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: CirdanCc: ArthurPSmith, SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-22 Thread Micru

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 "flexible". It seems you are confusing plagiarism and copyright violation, which are completely separate categories (the former is a concept in the context of academic scholarship, the latter a concept in the context of law). What we are discussing here is whether data collections licensed under CC-BY-SA or other non-CC-0 licenses (like OSM) can be imported to Wikidata. The licenses of these collections do not simply vanish because one alters some words or uses a computer program to extract the information.

Wikipedias rephrase the content of works under copyright and rebrand that content as CC-BY-SA, which label do you put to that practice? In which way is it different from doing the same with any content and rebranding it as CC0?

If there are cases where copyright law permits the extraction of information from copyrighted texts, then this applies to CC-BY-SA licensed texts as well, so there is no need to change CC-BY-SA to extract information from Wikipedia.

That would be ideal.

It's not a "clarification", it would constitute a retroactive conversion of CC-BY-SA into a license which is effectively CC-0. As we have explained to you multiple times now, that is not possible without consent of every single contributor of a copyright protected text to Wikipedia and it is highly doubtful that a majority of Wikipedians (or the WMF) is interested in converting Wikipedia to CC-0.

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 this conversation in other places.

(I can only urge you again to carefully read the explanations people in this discussion have given you and perhaps also look into copyright law (a Wikipedia article will do) and the CC-BY-SA and CC-0 license texts to understand the fundamental issues we are discussing here.)

I did, however there is not much legislation on data mining texts with copyright (is there any?).TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: MicruCc: SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-21 Thread Cirdan

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 with data-mining, in a way it is re-paraphrasing a text in a machine readable format.


I'm again sorry to say that, but your comments show a deeply flawed understanding of copyright. Copyright of texts is by no means "flexible". It seems you are confusing plagiarism and copyright violation, which are completely separate categories (the former is a concept in the context of academic scholarship, the latter a concept in the context of law). What we are discussing here is whether data collections licensed under CC-BY-SA or other non-CC-0 licenses (like OSM) can be imported to Wikidata. The licenses of these collections do not simply vanish because one alters some words or uses a computer program to extract the information.


In T193728#4218415, @Micru wrote:
In my opinion, a CC license that would allow for data mining as CC0 would be most helpful, and not only for the Wikimedia movement.


There is already a license which allows data mining under CC-0: CC-0 itself. There cannot be any other license which allows re-use of content under CC-0 which is not effectively identical CC-0. If there are cases where copyright law permits the extraction of information from copyrighted texts, then this applies to CC-BY-SA licensed texts as well, so there is no need to change CC-BY-SA to extract information from Wikipedia.

But as said, I would be rather troubled by such an approach.

Do you care to explain why does it bother you to clarify the license?

It's not a "clarification", it would constitute a retroactive conversion of CC-BY-SA into a license which is effectively CC-0. As we have explained to you multiple times now, that is not possible without consent of every single contributor of a copyright protected text to Wikipedia and it is highly doubtful that a majority of Wikipedians (or the WMF) is interested in converting Wikipedia to CC-0.

(I can only urge you again to carefully read the explanations people in this discussion have given you and perhaps also look into copyright law (a Wikipedia article will do) and the CC-BY-SA and CC-0 license texts to understand the fundamental issues we are discussing here.)TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: CirdanCc: SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-21 Thread SimonPoole

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 (see https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode 4.c) and only waives any rights the WMF would have. Yes the "human readable" version of CC0 is (not for the first time) misleading (see https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
the https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Contribute page is silent on the issue of using third party sources
the WMF  communicates ambiguously about its approach to respecting rights of third parties in the place where it does touch on the subject, and it suggests subterfuge to get around database rights (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Data_donation#Wikidata_and_copyright)  (which is AFAIK untested in court so may or may not work). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights is better but unlikely to be seen by contributors. Note: for whatever reason the WMF totally ignores non-EU countries that have a sweat of the brow doctrine (Australia and New Zealand for example) in practice these tend to be far more restrictive than the EU sui generis db rights.


SimonTASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: SimonPooleCc: SimonPoole, Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-19 Thread Micru

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 way the problem that we are having is something that will benefit others if it gets addressed in the proper way, at the source. In my opinion, a CC license that would allow for data mining as CC0 would be most helpful, and not only for the Wikimedia movement.

But as said, I would be rather troubled by such an approach.

Do you care to explain why does it bother you to clarify the license?

Of course there might be the case that with the current license it is enough, so I am indeed very interested in knowing the perspective of legal counsel on this.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: MicruCc: Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 to give him the opportunity to speak up.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-18 Thread Mateusz_Konieczny

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 CC-0?".TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Mateusz_KoniecznyCc: Scott_WorldUnivAndSch, Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 would raise the same quibble, though.

So here's my new suggestion:

R2) "Can you comment on the practice of having processes that in bulk extract facts from Wikipedia articles, which are published under CC-BY-SA, and store the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0?"

Does this sound right? I am not naming the interwiki links explicitly, as it seems they should be subsumed by that question (i.e. whatever is true for places of birth will also be true for interwiki links). If someone thinks that we should be explicitly mentioning interwiki links, I am happy to add them, for example in the following form:

R3) "Can you comment on the practice of having processes that in bulk extract facts from Wikipedia articles, which are published under CC-BY-SA, and store the results in Wikidata, where they are published under CC-0? We ask in particular about interwiki links, and additionally also refer to statements stored in Wikidata for e.g. the place of birth, family relationships, etc."

My preference right now is for R2, but I am happy to listen to other suggestions.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 agree that we should also ask WMF Legal officially too, in particular before making grand sweeping changes. But, at least for me, if Gnom1 says "all is fine" or something similar, I won't push Wikilegal for an official answer, as I consider this done. It is still an option that others can pursue, obviously, but I won't use my volunteer time for that.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 resolving this.

@Denny Thanks for steering the discussion toward concrete questions. I think your question sounds about right. I have a slight quibble with the phrasing "other facts, such as places of birth", as I believe the problem is not with the individual facts, but with processes that imported them in bulk.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-18 Thread MisterSynergy

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 ask WMF’s legal department to organize a professional opinion regarding open questions (elaborated in house or via some hired external expert), regardless of User:Gnom’s unquestionable knowledge in this field. (Yes it is great that he adds expert opinion, but as far as I understand it is all unpaid legal advice he provides, right?)

If, for example, it turns out that the extraction that Wikidata has done from Wikipedia is deemed breaking the license of Wikipedia, then we should indeed purge Wikidata of any data taken from such a license breach or change Wikidata's license to CC-BY-SA.

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 attribution would render it useless; large-scale purging would tear down so much content that we would basically have to start again from the beginning. We are 5.5 years into this project and many of us have spent thousands of hours of effort into it, based on the unchallenged assumption (by WMF) that Wikipedia imports as we are doing them are legally fine.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: MisterSynergyCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 done by CC, and then have the license be adopted by the Foundation together with the community, and this only works due to the or-later-clause. But as said, I would be rather troubled by such an approach.

My understanding is that the goal of this bug is to reduce the legal certainties as far as we can. As was pointed out by @EgonWillighagen only a series of court decisions will be able to resolve that 100%, but I don't think it makes sense to keep that bug open until then (if that ever happens). 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. If, for example, it turns out that the extraction that Wikidata has done from Wikipedia is deemed breaking the license of Wikipedia, then we should indeed purge Wikidata of any data taken from such a license breach or change Wikidata's license to CC-BY-SA.

I hope that seems viable to everyone involved.

I am personally convinced that no license breach has happened, because the facts that have been exported to Wikidata are not covered by copyright. But, as @Rspeer pointed out correctly, my personal beliefs are not exactly relevant here. So here is my suggestion for a question to Gnom1, and I would be happy for others to refine it:

"Can you comment on the legal status of


interwiki links and 2) other facts, such as places of birth,


be extracted from Wikipedia and be republished in Wikidata under a CC-0 license?"

@Psychoslave , @Rspeer , does this sound good to you?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 re-paraphrasing a text in a machine readable format.

It is most definitely not [feasible]

Why not? Licenses are updated all the time. From 3.0 to 4.0 or whatever is the current version. It is within the realm of the feasible to envision a license that allows for data-mining and release as CC0. It is not specifically forbidden, neither it is specifically allowed, the only change would be to make it explicit that it is allowed.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: MicruCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 copyright is deeply flawed then. If I contribute a piece of text under CC-BY-SA to Wikipedia, Wikipedia has to ask me whether I'm willing to re-license that text under a different license. This can never be substituted by a majority decision, since I hold the rights to that text.

The solution to such a potential massive license violation on Wikidata cannot be to retroactively change the license of Wikipedia

Why not? It is definitely feasible.

It is most definitely not, and to me this is a deeply troubling approach to the problem of potential license violations on Wikidata.

there are many sources Wikidata uses which aren't CC-0 either

This should be examined on a case by case basis, there might not be that many issues.

Which is exactly what we are trying to do here. So far, there isn't even a clear picture as to whether imports from Wikipedia to Wikidata are legally problematic. It might very well be that they are fine.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: CirdanCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 to retroactively change the license of Wikipedia

Why not? It is definitely feasible.

there are many sources Wikidata uses which aren't CC-0 either

This should be examined on a case by case basis, there might not be that many issues.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: MicruCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 license as it would allow the distribution of Wikipedia content under CC-0, if it is really a problem that Wikidata is reusing Wikipedia content the way it is currently doing, then this is a huge problem for Wikidata. Determining wether this is the case is precisely what this task is about.

The solution to such a potential massive license violation on Wikidata cannot be to retroactively change the license of Wikipedia, but Wikidata would need to be cleaned up. Especially, and I'm just repeating what has already been said numerous times in this thread, because there are many sources Wikidata uses which aren't CC-0 either.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: CirdanCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 cannot be changed retroactively.

Says who?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: MicruCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 correct. Wikipedia as a whole is licensed under CC-BY-SA, and that also includes the way the content is organized. Just like not every single sentence is protected by copyright, not every single interwiki connection is, but I would be surprised to learn that the structure and organization of Wikipedia's content is not protected at all.

Given my current layman's understanding, that's quite similar to software: While most (if not all) source code constructs used e.g. in Wikibase are not copyright protected, the combination and clever organization of these generic constructs very well constitutes a copyrightable work. (Actually, there will probably be many parts in Wikibase which were "written" by some IDE code completion very much like an interwiki bot "wrote" an interwiki link.)TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: CirdanCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 aside the fact that every individual contributor to Wikipedia would have to agree to that change in license: Should such an amendment prove necessary to "legalize" Wikidata, there are other data sources used by Wikidata which are much more problematic (e.g. the already mentioned OSM).TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: CirdanCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-18 Thread Nemo_bis

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 from GFDL to CC-BY-SA, a new GFDL version had to be released for us to be able to do it. The license cannot be changed retroactively.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_AnswersTASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Nemo_bisCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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) 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?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: MicruCc: Micru, lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-18 Thread EgonWillighagen

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 give you certainty: only court can.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: EgonWillighagenCc: lisong, Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 encyclopedia". As far as I know, everyone is fine with this. If you're not, have fun arguing that, but I can tell you don't seriously hold the position you profess about attribution, it just fit into the current theory you were concocting about why violating Share-Alike on Wikidata is okay.

Fundamentally, your position amounts to that old favorite of nonsense Internet IP arguments: "you didn't enforce your copyright once, so now you don't have a copyright anymore". Very popular among people who once heard something about trademarks and misremembered it, and people who just want something legalish-sounding about why it's okay for them to copy stuff.

Share-Alike is a real thing, and unfortunately I think that this Phabricator discussion is not going to get any closer to a serious discussion of how to change Wikidata's copyright status. I'd like to know, specifically, what it would take to get Wikidata to stop making the frequently-false claim on every page that its data is CC-0.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 its content that was copied in bulk from other projects, I would like to know what is.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-17 Thread Denny

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 on the English Wikipedia to my edit. The page editing history on the English Wikipedia will not have any attribution to me. There is no link at all to my edit on the German Wikipedia that would fulfill the attribution requirement.

But I agree with you that the page editing history is sufficient attribution.

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.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-17 Thread Rspeer

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, the result is shared alike. Those are the two requirements: attribution, and share alike. Wikipedia follows Wikipedia's license, and therefore Wikipedians can use content from Wikipedia.

For the same reason, Wikidata may not use content from Wikipedia. That's the topic of this task.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-17 Thread Rspeer

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 operator, who would make decisions about how to resolve mismatches and ambiguities, one major task in creating a translation dictionary.

All Wikipedia content is created using software. You do not lose your copyright when you use software.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-17 Thread Denny

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 DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-17 Thread Aschmidt

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 concept---provided the interwiki links
are right, that is... ;)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originalityTASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: AschmidtCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-17 Thread Denny

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]] [[hr:London]] etc. This have been, in most wikis written and maintained by bots anyway, without any reference to the originating author. So if that is the case, Wikipedia has already never been compliant with that license.

But even ignoring that, Wikidata does *not* store the same _expression_ anyway. So what exactly is the copyright asserted on?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread Rspeer

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 terms, and not all of the mappings are as obvious or as one-to-one as the name of a major world city, that is a work that people created. It's not an authorless happenstance. It's not a "monkey selfie" as Tgh so insultingly put it.

The fact that it's expressed as one Wikipedia page being the same as another doesn't make it authorless. That data came from inter-language links that were originally created on Wikipedia, and translation templates that were originally created on Wiktionary, all of which were entered by specific authors, under the CC-By-SA license.

It seems that the entire point of this reductionist handwaving is to find an excuse to not follow the CC-By-SA license.

Consider the case of importing bulk data from someplace outside of Wikimedia, which the legal team already gave a very clear ruling on, linked repeatedly in this thread: you can't do it unless the data is totally free. The "but it's just facts" argument has already been deemed insufficent. Why would that argument work against Wikipedia or Wiktionary when it doesn't work against OpenStreetMap?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread Aschmidt

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 claim any meaningful exclusive right.

That remains to be seen. Every bit of text that is imported from
CC-by-sa-protected Wikipedia articles has to be weighed and put to the
test. Also, the sum is more than just an addition of its parts. Think in
terms of quality. Numbers don't count, as we say, iudex non calculat.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: AschmidtCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread Nemo_bis

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 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 claim any meaningful exclusive right.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Nemo_bisCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread Aschmidt

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 DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: AschmidtCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 are not even necessarily translations, mind you - it is often "there was an article on the German Wikipedia, here's an article on the English Wikipedia, let's connect these two". In general, most titles were not translated. Also, in many of those cases it is hard to argue for any threshold of creativity - the fact that 'London' is called 'Londres' in Frech is rather un-creative, and merely stating a fact.

Also, technically, these are not translations in Wikidata, but labels of an entity in different languages.

I would be surprised if the multilingual labels of the Wikidata entities would trigger copyright, but even if it did, there is nothing in the current Wikipedias that would allow for this copyright to take effect: i.e. if we look at an entry such as Q23780914 - highly visible entry, labels in 50+ languages - there never existed anything in the Wikipedias which might have been under copyright.

Or am I missing something here?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread Nemo_bis

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 license that does not allow the dataset to be reshared.


I agree. But I'd argue that nobody would see such a dataset as problematic, especially because it's so small (few hundreds data points). I'm looking for some larger example which has had some relationship of some kind with Wikidata, and which someone *could* argue it's a problem *if* we really reproduce it. Then we could see whether the overlap between the dataset and Wikidata is 100 %, 99 %, 70 %... and have something more concrete to talk about.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Nemo_bisCc: Lofhi, Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 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 license that does not allow the dataset to be reshared.

Now just because it happens that we can reproduce that list from Wikidata with a SPARQL query should not mean that we have to act in any way.

On the other side, if we had used that list to import the data - then that would in my understanding be a breach of the rights of that company. But if we did not and the result happens to be the same - well, that's how it is.

If the example is too simple, it could be easily extended to be larger and more substantial. My argument would still be the same.

What do you think?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

Denny added a comment.
@Psychoslave sorry to disagree on the questions, but are we in any disagreement on these three questions?

That would be my answers. I don't expect you to disagree with that.

What I think the main question is whether Wikidata's extractions from, e.g. Wikipedia and other natural language sources, actually constitute such a case. In my opinion, that is not the case. The extractions that we have, and the way the data is expressed in Wikidata, are, in my understanding, not sufficient to constitute a rights breach of Wikipedia's copyright holders.

Should that be our question, whether that is the case? I would find it a shame to ask questions where we agree upon the answers, and not use the resources most effectively.

So my suggestion for the question would be:

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?

What do you think?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread Nemo_bis

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 normal.

The legal restriction of a database do not automatically extend to every thing in the world which has touched that database. It's not like taking the plain text of an entire book and copy-pasting it into a wiki page.

One question could be: is there any significant database (whatever its legal status) which is entirely and perfectly reproduced in (a subset of) Wikidata? That is, is there any example where I can query Wikidata and download an identical copy of another database which is not derived from Wikidata? From the top of my head I can't think of any example.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Nemo_bisCc: Nemo_bis, TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread TomT0m

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 decision taken only because I’m mistaken or because of incorrect community opinions
This is the situation as we have it for a few years, so if there is an issue even if we take a conservative decision now this won’t change the past and the current situation is at risk
« as any doubt remaining would be baneful. » Well, this is a balance question, the change of license could be more painful/harmful or put some datas in current Wikidata at risk of being legally challenged. This might pose a problem to some of our reuser/usecases could be . This is not that simple.


There is two ways of seeing things: the legal issues have not actually been much of an issue up to now and the problem posed by it are mostly theoretical as long as we are careful not to import obviously problematic datasets. Or we take a legalistic approach and to be safe we must answer legal questions anyway as if we don’t understand the issues in depth we can’t be sure we took no risk. But considering the actual legal complexity, I think a total legal safety is rather dubious and we have to live with some amount of risk no matter what. This implies that to be conscious of this amount we have to evaluate it, knowing the truth in this area is sometime only known after a trial…

In this case, considering we lived the past few years with this and we did not see anything coming beyond any discussion here and there that pops from time to time, I don’t really see (personal opinion) any reason to believe this could change in the future if things stays that way.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: TomT0mCc: TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread Aschmidt

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 ethical issue: I think we will all agree here that pure
 facts can be used by anyone (beyond private life one).

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.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: AschmidtCc: TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread TomT0m

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 have been violated and want to go to court.

First question: do we have actual candidates for Alice or AliceAndBob?
Second question: Under which precise law could they actually file a claim?
Third question: Under which condition would the court accept the case?

The rationale behind this question is that my impression is that, at least in the france case, only the producer of data in a database can claim rights, if he has engaged a substantial amount of efforts or resources, and if he can prove it, to compile the datas. The « author’s law » in france do not cover datas or databases beyond the pure form.

Which kind of contributor in Wikipedia actually does (amongst other things) pure data compilation work to the point he can consider this « substantial »? If no individual can, can a group of contributor consider they together engage a substantial amount of effort and together file a complaint?

To give an idea of the complexity of the questions, I’ll translate a few phrases of a lawyer’s webpage in french ( https://www.murielle-cahen.com/publications/p_bases2.asp )
On « who can claim the right»:

Le droit sui generis appartient au producteur de la base de données. Le producteur est « la personne qui prend l'initiative et le risque des investissements correspondants » selon le Code de la propriété intellectuelle. Aucune autre personne ne peut se prévaloir du droit sui generis.

« the sui generis right belongs to the producer of the database. That is « the person who take the initiative and the risk of the corresponding investments »according to the intellectual property code. No other person can claim the right. »

On « what is a substantial amount :

Selon la CJCE, le rassemblement des données, « leur agencement systématique ou méthodique au sein de la base, l'organisation de leur accessibilité individuelle et la vérification de leur exactitude tout au long de la période de fonctionnement de la base » peut nécessiter un investissement substantiel.

« According to the CJCE (a high level European court of justice), the data compilation, their systematic or methodical arrangement into the database, the organisation of their individual access, the verification of their correctness all along the lifetime of the database activity » can need a substantial investment.

Ce n'est pas l'investissement lié à la création des données qui entre en ligne de compte mais l'investissement lié à la présentation de ces données dans la base.

This is not the investment linked to the creation of the datas that is taken into account but the investment linked to the presentation of the datas in the database.

« les moyens consacrés à l'établissement d'une liste des chevaux ne correspondent pas à un investissement lié à l'obtention et à la vérification du contenu de la base de données dans laquelle figure cette liste »

The means used to establish a list of horses do not constitute an investment linked to the obtention and verification of the content of the database in which this list is included »

In this document the « substancial amount » is also discussed. An extraction of 12% of the announces of a job website was not considered substantial by a court, for example. So considered in isolation, 10% information reuse is not substantial.

But in our case, does this mean 10% off all wikipedias, considering no one can claim to be the producer of all wikipedia, or 10% of a specific contributor contribution, considering it’s rarely relevant to consider the unique contribution of a single contributor, or that the contribution of a single contributor qualify to the database definition…

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 issue: I think we will all agree here that pure facts can be used by anyone (beyond private life one).TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: TomT0mCc: TomT0m, jrbs, EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread Psychoslave

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 but very interested), this is not what I have been told... in NL there is the provision that allows to replicate a database if the content is aggregated independently (the famous case is the Dutch phonebook which was manually copied in India; sorry cannot find an online description quickly).


First I should rectify my own statement, as I have been pointed that it's not the quantity, but the qualitative significance of the transfer that matters. I'm interested to learn more about the case you are referring to, if you can find some link.

Without more contest, I would interpret  "content aggregated independently" as create a data collection from scratch out of many sources, and the current thread doesn't pertain to that kind of cases. The issue treated here is "transferring significant data set directly from an already constituted data collection".TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread Rspeer

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 exactly the purpose of a ShareAlike clause. You might sympathize with why Wikipedians like ShareAlike.

The reason I suggested relicensing Wikidata as CC-By-SA is because most of its data comes from other Wikimedia projects, in violation of their licenses, and I have no patience for the people here who are looking for loopholes and excuses for why it's okay to violate CC-By-SA. But removing all the CC-By-SA data from Wikidata, and leaving only the small portion that was contributed directly as CC-0, would effectively destroy Wikidata. That's not what I want.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread EgonWillighagen

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 the loose common sense of the word) or CCZero itself is not OK. That said, I am not aware of anyone violating that. I understood that was discussed on a private mailing list, but makes this ticket's discussion a bit academic (sadly).

Second, to me, when I signed up for a Wikidata account, the license/waiver (CCZero is an agreement that waives all rights given by any law in any jurisdiction; does someone know if the legality of it has been challenged in court? not that I am aware of, at this moment) was pretty clear to me. Just like with Wikipedia, the account owner takes responsibility for not uploading copyright infringing material. To me, that does not make CCZero unsuitable for Wikidata at all, but does mean that some users seems to violate the Wikidata user agreement.

Third, someone above suggest to change the CCZero license/waiver. I strongly disagree: it would violate my creative right, if not legally (which is probably OK), but at least morally. Like me, I expect that many others have put significant effort in entering CCZero data, and I really prefer others to acknowledge my and others wishes to have "my" data under CCZero.

Fourth, tracking where data comes from is really important. But please consider it's complicated. If something says, "stated in" "English Wikipedia", it does not mean it was automatically entered; that depends from account to account. When I cannot find a better source, I often use "English Wikipedia" as reference source, and will state that in Wikidata (I sometimes forget).

So, for me this issues is not about CCZero for Wikidata, it is about some people doing stuff they were not supposed to do. Have these people been contacted? Has the violating content be identified? What was their reply? Has an attempt been made to remove that content?

EgonTASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: EgonWillighagenCc: EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread Cirdan

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 very interested), this is not what I have been told... in NL there is the provision that allows to replicate a database if the content is aggregated independently
 ...
 My point, from what I understood, is does matter how content was transferred, which makes me consider Mix'n'Match legally safe.


You are both wrong and right at the same time. I think Wikilegal/Database Rights linked above by Gnom does a good job at explaining the legal situation in both the US and the EU.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: CirdanCc: EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread Psychoslave

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, should we enforce a policy to at least document licenses of used sources so users who care about not being in infringement with upstream data banks can easily filter data who don't match their own standards in terms of legal matter?
should this be not allowed, what should we do with already imported material that don't match this criteria?

TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-14 Thread EgonWillighagen

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 have been told... in NL there is the provision that allows to replicate a database if the content is aggregated independently (the famous case is the Dutch phonebook which was manually copied in India; sorry cannot find an online description quickly).

My point, from what I understood, is does matter how content was transferred, which makes me consider Mix'n'Match legally safe.

EgonTASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: EgonWillighagenCc: EgonWillighagen, sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-13 Thread Denny

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 make sense to all of us to agree on a small set of questions that we want to ask.

@Psychoslave, since you opened this ticket, and have obviously quite an investment in the question, do you want to come up with a small set of simple, concrete questions to ask? Or shall I try to, I'd be happy to.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: DennyCc: sarojdhakal, Agabi10, NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-13 Thread Simon_Villeneuve

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 professionnal encyclopedists about how to create a free encyclopedia. ;)

What is important here is to know what the contributors are doing, what they think is right or not, what they know and what they don't know about media law and what are their questions about it. If someone of the Legal Counsel of the WMF come here and say that they have evaluated all this stuff and that everything is all right everywhere in the world (or, at least, give a list of countries where everything is ok), so I will be at ease and I will continue my work based on this advice. Otherwise, I'll keep a doubt about Wikidata stuff and I'll act in consequence.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Simon_VilleneuveCc: NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-13 Thread Psychoslave

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 data collection are possibly copyrightable, even if this data collection solely consist of facts. Taking only in consideration US law, where WMF servers are hosted, see Copyright Protection for Purely Factual Compilations Under Feist Publications, Inc. vs Rural Telephone Service Co.: How Does Feist Protect Electronic Data Bases of Facts? which concludes, inter alie, the selection theory grants copyright protection in a factual compilation based on originality in the compiler's selection. In framing this standard, the Court reiterated the low threshold of originality required to invoke copyright protection.

But if Wikidata aims at being useful outside USA, it should of course ensure that downstream user can rely the license under which it is claimed to be published for their specific legislation. It doesn't mean that everything in Wikidata should be legally publishable under CC-0 everywhere, but it should be legal to do it at least in the USA. And it would be only really useful without legal uncertainty outside USA if it was providing a way to ascertain whether a data subset derived of Wikidata can be legally used in a given different legal context and under which license conditions.

Current state of Wikidata conduct projects like OSM to put in their policy that, in general, imports of data from Wikidata are not accepted due to the sources often used to contribute to Wikidata. This is a real concrete case of what the current legal uncertainty of Wikidata conduct to. Potential downstream users won't use it because of its low standards in terms of copyright. That doesn't seems to match our stated value of striving for excellence.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: NMaia, Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-13 Thread NMaia

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, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-13 Thread 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 what good is it to have a discussion
between people who do not understand transnational problems in media law?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: AschmidtCc: Simon_Villeneuve, Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 if it could get away with it.

Even if you were to create a "monkey selfie" case, claiming that Wikipedia contributors have no rights because there are too many of them or something -- and keep in mind that this sounds like utter nonsense to me, in my layman opinion -- if you accomplished anything like that, it would be a self-own. It would be a sabotage of Wikimedia. You don't test copyright by violating the copyright of the same organization you're involved with!

I've sometimes thought it would be nice if WMF could defend community copyrights in court, but that seems to be a very different discussion.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, pajz, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-11 Thread Psychoslave

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 authors, but that is not the case. "The Wikimedia community" is not a legal entity that could hold copyright or neighboring rights. Community curation seems to me like a legal black hole, a bit like the monkey selfie: there is an activity that is clearly protected by IP rights, but there is no one to assign those rights to, so in the end the work/data does end up in the public domain.

That's different from copying, say, map data from Google, in which case there is a well-defined legal entity which might or might not have sui generis database rights which Wikidata might or might not want to respect.


Well, it seems very complicated legal point, involving notions such as collective work, factual association, and voluntary association, and maybe other legal considerations I'm not even aware of.

But even beyond the legality concern, it would be interesting to know if there is any consensus among Wikipedia contributors regarding this derivative work which weaver the license terms under which they consented to contribute. The legal aspect is of course important, but the feeling that Wikimedia matches its displayed social values to be welcoming hosts, caring neighbors, and equitable allies should not be neglected.

As stated on the Wikidata talk page, it might also be putted into perspective with How Does Feist Protect Electronic Data Bases of Facts? which concludes the selection theory grants copyright protection in a factual compilation based on originality in the compiler's selection. In framing this standard, the Court reiterated the low threshold of originality required to invoke copyright protection.

Regarding copyright ownership and ability to claim infringement, it really applies to the specific case of Wikipedia and similar cases of "collective work" without any delegation to any central authority.

For Wikimedia project it raises the question should we change terms of use of Wikimedia services to grant the WMF rights to defend Wikimedia community copyrights in court (which could be delegated to recognized affiliates)?

For all data banks, whether they have a well identified single moral person holding the copyright or not,  a clear statement should be decided anyway on what should or should not be imported from them. This decision should preferably depend on each source terms of use, licenses, or other legally reliable and identifiable considerations.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: PsychoslaveCc: Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, pajz, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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, then, would be translations of article titles into different languages. Aligning article topics across languages, despite that different languages and of course different authors group concepts differently, required conscious decisions by Wikipedians.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, pajz, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 project.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, pajz, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-11 Thread Jarekt

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: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-ineligible.  It does not matter  if such facts are embedded in otherwise copyrightable text.  For example I can go to copyrighted book, copy date of birth for someone and place it in Wikidata, without violating copyrights of the book author. This situation might change if someone starts importing full sentences of text, like example sentences using some word.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: JarektCc: Jarekt, Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, pajz, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

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 content is copyrighted, and the copyrights are held by the individuals who wrote the content. The thing that makes this copyrighted content usable, without having to license it specifically from an infeasibly large number of different people, is the CC-By-SA license. CC-By-SA is definitely not the public domain. It is a license to use the data by meeting two specific requirements, and therefore it's important that we begin the difficult process of making WIkidata follow those requirements.

The large number of copyright holders does make it difficult to enforce the license (although, historically, some open source licenses really have been enforced). However, Wikidata is a Wikimedia project! Its responsibility to do the right thing is not based on the threat of enforcement. Wikidata should follow the license of other Wikimedia content because we are all part of the same project, and shouldn't be breaking the license that we expect others to follow.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: RspeerCc: Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, pajz, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-11 Thread Aschmidt

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, at least under German law. If I put an infobox in an article copyright law applies to it as much as it applies to the rest of the article.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: AschmidtCc: Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, pajz, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

2018-05-11 Thread Tgr

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 Wikimedia community" is not a legal entity that could hold copyright or neighboring rights. Community curation seems to me like a legal black hole, a bit like the monkey selfie: there is an activity that is clearly protected by IP rights, but there is no one to assign those rights to, so in the end the work/data does end up in the public domain.

That's different from copying, say, map data from Google, in which case there is a well-defined legal entity which might or might not have sui generis database rights which Wikidata might or might not want to respect.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: TgrCc: Rspeer, OhKayeSierra, Aschmidt, AndrewSu, Mateusz_Konieczny, Maxlath, Huji, Glrx, Realworldobject, Ltrlg, pajz, Papapep, Tgr, Ayack, Gnom1, MichaelMaggs, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Cirdan, 0x010C, Sylvain_WMFr, Denny, Ivanhercaz, Pintoch, Lydia_Pintscher, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Aklapper, Psychoslave, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, ZhouZ, Mpaulson, Wikidata-bugs, aude, jayvdb, Slaporte, Mbch331, Jay8g___
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T193728: Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata