<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Am 20.09.2017 um 20:55 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJGfNe8_s5f=sTbvht0xxDsMNskwfab-X2jU257q7m3fZ9o08w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">While the WMF does not claim any rights
in wikidata contents, it does not make any representations
(one way or the other) as to third party rights in the data.
As an illustration: you could dump all of OSM in to wikidata
and the WMF would not need to change or do anything. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
But the same works in reverse, doesn't it? Wikidata project,
just like WP and OSM, is user contributable. If a user uploads
data that violates project's license, it should be deleted.
And for that reason, both Wikidata and OSM state the license
under which the data is contributed and shared. If I make an
edit to OSM by copying data from Google, wouldn't that be the
same thing?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The WMFs doctrine is that data (even more than one item) is not
protectable, the wording on the WD edit page is ambiguous and the
ToU don't really address the issue at all. <span data-dobid="hdw">Further
the WMF is not known for policing wikidata (contrary to the OSMF
and OSM) and it is doubtful if it could even be done in any
reasonable way. Skipping that lots of WD data was originally
derived from WP with its own set of issues.<br>
<br>
That said, as long as we don't start using wikidata instead of
data from OSM contributors, it really is just the WMFs problem.
not ours. We really really have better use for brain power than
trying to fix the WMFs problems for them.<br>
<br>
</span>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJGfNe8_s5f=sTbvht0xxDsMNskwfab-X2jU257q7m3fZ9o08w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">(CC0), but the reverse depends
on if the OSM contributor agreed to dedicate their
edits to public domain.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
There is not really a practical and meaningful way in which
an OSM contributor could do that, outside of facts that they
have surveyed themselves and kept separate.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How I hate to diverge from the main topic, but alas... :)
This does sound like a severe problem (that should be taken to
a separate thread) - if I, as a user, set the Public Domain
checkbox, my assumptions are that my contributions are PD. If
I trace something based on some image data, I need to specify
that source, otherwise I am in violation of the source's
license. If I did not specify the source, and I checked the PD
box, it can be assumed that I am donating under PD. If this is
not the case, it is a violation of my contributor's rights -
because otherwise my intention is not being honored (i want
other people to be able to use my work unrestricted). If
anyone wants to comment, please start a new thread :)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This has really been beaten to death: at best the PD flag can be
taken as an indication of sentiment. Fixing it would require
re-wording the actual text, going back to 4 million odd users and
asking them to reconsider their choice. This however would not
address the already mentioned fundamental issues with data prior to
such a change (assuming that it would be practical to implement all
the technical measures that you are suggesting going forward) and
further would still run afoul of the fact that the OSMF doesn't have
a mandate, is not even allowed, to distribute contributed data on
any other terms than those compatible with the contributor terms.<br>
<br>
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN (at least not on volunteer time).<br>
<br>
Note on the side: If we were to undertake anything even remotely on
the scale of what the above would imply, it is likely that we would
review our current licence instead. However as has been pointed out
many times that would not result is us switching to a
non-attribution licence (aka CC0 or similar), so it wouldn't really
help with wikidata compatibility. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJGfNe8_s5f=sTbvht0xxDsMNskwfab-X2jU257q7m3fZ9o08w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Without it, OSM data is
licensed under ODbL, and cannot be copied. We should
make it easier to detect what piece of OSM data is in
PD. I do like your USB analogy :) About names - you
will be surprised to discover that MB and other places
are actively pursuing Wikidata integration because WD
tends to have a huge names list, possibly bigger than
OSM itself?<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
That is nice for MB, but problematic in more than one way
for OSM.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Please elaborate, I know of at least one more company that
is actively doing that. Sigh, another side topic :D</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Very simple: use of wikidata is not declared and not obvious to the
end users, errors in wikidata get attributed to OSM but can't be
fixed in OSM, well can't be fixed without a lot of technical
mumbo-jumbo that you cannot expect non-seasoned hands to know. And
even if the user in the end finds out where to fix an issue, they
are spending time fixing wikidata, not OSM.<br>
<br>
It is completely clear that we are in a competitive situation for
mind share, money and contributors (more exact: for contributors
time) with many other players. Now OSM proper has been loosing out
big time on the first point as of late, but luckily hasn't had great
requirements on the 2nd (that is why we are still around), but even
OSM is not so daft to want a situation in which it actively has to
redirect potential OSM contributors to a third party to fix "its"
core data.<br>
<br>
Simon<br>
<br>
PS: the good thing about this discussion is that it has reminded me
to submit a PR that removes the PD checkbox from the UI and the
corresponding data from the database.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJGfNe8_s5f=sTbvht0xxDsMNskwfab-X2jU257q7m3fZ9o08w@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Simon
Poole <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">simon@poole.ch</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>[turning on broken record mode :-)]<br>
</p>
<span class="">
<div class="m_-5761963472857145625moz-cite-prefix">On
20.09.2017 17:54, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">* Oleksiy, OSM can use any
data from Wikidata because of the public domain
dedication </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span> While the WMF does not claim any rights in
wikidata contents, it does not make any representations
(one way or the other) as to third party rights in the
data. As an illustration: you could dump all of OSM in to
wikidata and the WMF would not need to change or do
anything. <br>
<span class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">(CC0), but the reverse
depends on if the OSM contributor agreed to
dedicate their edits to public domain. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span> There is not really a practical and meaningful way
in which an OSM contributor could do that, outside of
facts that they have surveyed themselves and kept
separate.<span class=""><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Without it, OSM data is
licensed under ODbL, and cannot be copied. We
should make it easier to detect what piece of OSM
data is in PD. I do like your USB analogy :)
About names - you will be surprised to discover
that MB and other places are actively pursuing
Wikidata integration because WD tends to have a
huge names list, possibly bigger than OSM itself?<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span> That is nice for MB, but problematic in more than
one way for OSM.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Simon<br>
<br>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>