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 notice against 3rd party text in a wikipedia article would make sense and I suspect that the WMF would and has honoured such.
- 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 rights pov, a substantial extract of that source (for example POI data from google) if included wholesale in OSM. - wikidata data: the WMF claims no database rights in the collection of individual facts and the reasoning for CC0 is based on the "facts can't be copyrighted" doctrine. In other words, we could wholesale import wikidata in to OSM from a WMF pov, however as already said, the provenance of the data is unclear and has the same issues as facts extracted from wikipedia articles. @Eugene I doubt if the WMF was actually thinking of DCMA requests against wikidata content in the published policy, as following one would damage their stance on facts not being copyrightable. In any case it is clear that they have not been policing their sources as SomeoneElse points outs. I should point out that part of the differences in the WMF and OSM stance is due to differences in the business models. The WMF, together with google, are the main (if not sole) distributors of W* content and at least the WMF clearly takes the stance that it is domiciled in the US and that is the only thing it cares about (that is the polite version). OSM on the other hand distributes its data to third parties all over the world for further use and to be useful the dataset needs to be free from rights of third parties that would limit its use in at least all regions we consider important. Disclaimer: I speak neither for the OSMF nor the WMF, nor does the above touch on the ethical aspects of copying from a third party, potentially a competitor, without explicit permission and potentially in violation of contractual terms of use/service. Simon Am 07.06.2015 um 18:40 schrieb SomeoneElse: > 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-issue here is that that as I understand it* isn't compatible with > ODBL, so those people using: > > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/source=wikipedia > > probably shouldn't be using that as a source. > > 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? > > Cheers, > Andy > > * but please feel free to explain where I'm wrong here, in the > jurisdiction in which OSM is based. > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
