> As for OSM ID number, this falls under the so-called "Fairhurst Doctrine"
> and would not be considered "Substantial" under ODbL if and only if the
> community agrees and the OSMF endorses.
At the risk of splitting hairs, I don't think the community/OSMF's
sense of the "substantial" threshold is
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> 2015-06-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar :
>
>> Please see the following page for
>> the relevant discussion: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Sources
>>
>
>
> the second word in this page says you don't need sources for every
2015-06-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar :
> Please see the following page for
> the relevant discussion: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Sources
>
the second word in this page says you don't need sources for everything
("The majority of statements on Wikidata should be verifiable")
Actually, Wikidata aims to avoid such judgment calls. As much as
possible, all facts (aka "statements" in Wikidata parlance) should
have citations to reliable sources. Please see the following page for
the relevant discussion: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Sources
So in your example, a city c
> Am 07.06.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar :
>
> Because in US copyright law, facts are not copyrightable. You can source the
> fact that "Washington, D.C." is the "capital of the United States of America"
> from a copyrighted book without that fact inheriting the copyright license
Am 07.06.2015 um 22:56 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
...
> *Individual* facts are never an issue, neither under copyright nor
> database rights, it only becomes a problem w.r.t. database rights once
> you systematically transfer data on a larger scale. In other words a
> single source=wikipedia
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
> - individual facts extracted from wikipedia articles. From a WMF pov
> unproblematic since "facts can't be copyrighted", from an OSM pov
> problematic because they might have originally been extracted from a 3rd
> party source and might be from
On Sunday 07 June 2015, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> - individual facts extracted from wikipedia articles. From a WMF pov
> unproblematic since "facts can't be copyrighted", from an OSM pov
> problematic because they might have originally been extracted from a
> 3rd party source and might be from a datab
On 7 June 2015 at 20:37, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> The relevant case is Feist v. Rural:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.
Link should be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.
aka:
It is not quite so simple
- wikipedia articles: clearly each on its own a creative work covered by
copyright. Distribution licence not compatible with the ODbL, but that
is not of any consequence for OSM since nobody (I hope) is proposing to
include Wikipedia articles in OSM. @Eugene a DCMA notic
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:40 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:
> However the bit that I really don't understand is that, to take an example
> wikidata page:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23098
>
> the source of that is from other, non-CC0-licensed places - how can the
> result be CC0?
>
Because in US
On 07/06/2015 12:43, Simon Poole wrote:
- while superficially the licence of wikidata is claimed to be CC0
That does raise an interesting question - while the source of wikidata
is claimed to be CC0 the source of wikipedia isn't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
A side-issu
12 matches
Mail list logo
