Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] wikipedia errors and dbpedia refresh period

[Chris B. <ch...@bi...>]

Hallo Gerard,

> One of the problems with the DBpedia tools is that you claim 
> copyright to
> the data resulting from running your software. This means that even 
> if I
> could find money for improving your software I would hesitate to 
> give it to
> you. The data resulting from running your GPL software should be the 
> GFDL
> according to your claim.

We have no intension to claim any copyrights on the facts that we 
extract from Wikipedia nor on the extraction code.
If we do this by accident, then this is due to us not looking in 
enough detail on the liciensing issues.

Which licenses should we use, in your opinion, in order to have the 
data open and not to violate the Wikipedia license at the same time?

Any hints appreciated.

Chris


--
Chris Bizer
Freie Universität Berlin
Phone: +49 30 838 54057
Mail: ch...@bi...
Web: www.bizer.de

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GerardM" <ger...@gm...>
To: "Chris Bizer" <ch...@bi...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] wikipedia errors and dbpedia refresh 
period


> Hoi,
> One of the problems with the DBpedia tools is that you claim 
> copyright to
> the data resulting from running your software. This means that even 
> if I
> could find money for improving your software I would hesitate to 
> give it to
> you. The data resulting from running your GPL software should be the 
> GFDL
> according to your claim.
>
> What you do is data mine Wikipedia and harvest facts. Facts are not
> copyrightable. Collections of facts are. By claiming a copyright, 
> you make
> it impossible for people that use a less restrictive license to mesh 
> the
> data in a static collection.
>
> I am of the opinion that you cannot claim a copyright on this data 
> and that
> consequently insisting on a license is problematic in the first 
> place. Sadly
> I consider not using your software and data and as a consequence may 
> have to
> reinvent the wheel which is more expensive then giving you money to 
> build
> the authoring tools that are so sorely needed. More expensive 
> because doing
> it twice is a waist of money..
>
> PS the software we write is also GPL ...
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On Dec 18, 2007 11:20 AM, Chris Bizer <ch...@bi...> wrote:
>>
>> We have lots of ideas for authoring tools that would support for 
>> Wikipedia
>> authors by pointing them at inconsistencies and proposing ways to 
>> correct
>> them, but we did not do any work into this direction yet as we are 
>> still
>> looking for funding.
>>
>