- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:24:17 +0000
- To: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>, Marc Wick <marc@geonames.org>
- CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Picking up a specific point On 27/09/2010 21:37, "Vasiliy Faronov" <vfaronov@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Marc, > >> It is the right of the data provider to determine what the data may be >> used for. > > To an extent allowed by the copyright / database right law. > >> I would estimate for most datasets on the lod diagram you would not be >> allowed to do what you describe. Most have some 'by' restriction so >> you would at least have to give credit to the providers of the dataset >> if you want to use it. Luckily this is a restriction pretty easy to >> comply with. I disagree. If you think of the delivery of Linked Data as a consumer of linked data grabbing a few sources, meshing them up and republishing, perhaps. But once you move onto the open web of linked data, the extent to which you would have to credit publishers is much more challenging. Yes, I can provide a list of all the (hundreds of) sources I have ever accessed by putting them on a page and giving out the URI, but that certainly doesn't satisfy the spirit of "by". I simply cannot track every triple that has influenced every inferred triple, plus contributed to the added value I give the data by constructing new knowledge using external processing. > > If your estimate is correct, then basically Google would be illegal, > I figure. They gather data from the Web (even store it, which my > hypothetical app doesn't), process it, and display it to the user in > some form. They don't give any special credit, save for the links > themselves. I think the Google thing is a good analogy/parallel. If Google had to attribute every page that influenced the page rank value, or even the ordering and choice of pages, it would essentially have to attribute the entire web. > > RSS aggregators would be illegal, for the same reasons. > > I believe this issue needs clarification. Licensing is a serious issue, > but I don't think we can make it a "must have" for proper LD serving. > Imagine a "normal" web developer cautiously trying to add a bit of RDFa > to their company's web site. Now we come along and tell them that they > must also indicate a license. But they don't have a special license for > their web content, as they have never needed it. Their reaction? They > just abandon LD altogether.
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 10:25:47 UTC