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 dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-06-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com:
Please see the following page for
the relevant discussion: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Sources
the second word in this page says you
Am 07.06.2015 um 21:37 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com:
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
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
2015-06-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com:
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
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
On 7 June 2015 at 20:37, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
The relevant case is Feist v. Rural:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.
Link should be:
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 database
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
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:40 AM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk 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?
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch 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
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 is
12 matches
Mail list logo
