Commons:Bots/Requests/Peuc bot

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Peuc bot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Peuc (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Upload Environment and Climate Change Canada's historical weather data as structured JSONs. See import RFC for more information.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 15.min⁻¹

Bot flag requested: Y

Programming language(s): Bash

Peuc (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Strictly speaking, weather historical data are just facts (not work) so it cannot be protected by copyright laws, at least in Canada and USA. So we could just choose to use CC0 to distribute with as few limitations as possible. However, Environment and Climate Change Canada has chosen to distribute its data using Open Government Licence 2.0 that is known (and made) to be compatible with CC BY 4.0. To preserve the spirit the data are distributed with, I propose we stick with required attribution for now. Peuc (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Cannot be protected" (pd-ineligible) is a totally different thing than CC-0 (protected work that is released by the copyright holder). Please elaborate what applies here. --Krd 17:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you only consider Canada and USA, it's pd-ineligible. Peuc (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said above the Canada requires cc-by-4.0. Can you please summarize the whole situation that is now considered correct? --Krd 07:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I've written. Here is a full recap:
  1. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) produces a dataset with historical weather raw data (facts)
  2. In Canada, facts are out of the scope of the copyright laws. The situation is the same in the USA, where Wikimedia servers are located. So this dataset is by nature in public domain at least in both these countries.
  3. Despite of this, ECCC has chosen to worldwide distribute the dataset using the Open Government Licence 2.0 that is known (and made) to be compatible with CC BY 4.0.
  4. So, on Commons, we have two options to redistribute these data:
    1. Based on the fact it's public domain in the USA, we can distribute data as public domain - that's what does pd-ineligible. It requires users in other countries to do their legal research to make sure it's locally allowed to use them.
    2. Or we can choose to stick with ECCC's original publishing choice and distribute data using CC BY 4.0, allowing worldwide users to use the data under the same conditions.
  5. As stated above, I propose we choose the Creative Commons way because despite of the additional attribution requirement, it preserves the spirit the data are distributed with and it's clearer for 95% of the population of the planet.
Peuc (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understood now, sorry. I think this should be approved. --Krd 17:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think special license tag should be created instead of subjective interpretation of terms of use. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peuc: What do you think about that? --Krd 08:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EugeneZelenko: @Krd: If by "subjective" you mean "not tested in court", that's the case for almost every single alleged license compatibility - in all countries in the world. Having a license added in structured data is not just like a user creating a new Template but requires modification in source code maintained by Wikimedia Foundation. While I can provide the needed source code, I expect adding a country-wide license to this very generic list would probably require going through WMF legal review process and be very low priority to them. I agree it would be a better long term solution, but as regular random user it's beyond my reach, unless you know WMF employee who would like to take this forward. Peuc (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If data is licensed with Open Government License 2.0, just use it. It's better then linking to CC-BY-4.0 and page where equivalence of two license is proved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EugeneZelenko: "If data is licensed with Open Government License 2.0, just use it". Thanks for your advice. What does that involve, in a very practical way? Peuc (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
license field in JSON should be different. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This field is not free text and only a predefined list of licenses can be used here. Adding a missing license here is technically possible, but please reread my message of 10 April, above. In my opinion, using CC BY-4.0 license compatibility remains our only option at short - mid term. Peuc (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced to a maximum of 15 edits per minute. Peuc (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please summarize if there if anything missing or unresolved. --Krd 03:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. --Krd 10:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bots/Requests/Peuc_bot&oldid=421989976"