DMOZ blog

DMOZ published a new blog entry September 3, 2009 namely "How is DMOZ Data Used?" where Emily Kayser spent fifteen lines of text for saying that whoever uses DMOZ data has to display a bandage crediting DMOZ.
Let alone the lack of ideas to talk about, she didn't reply the first comment by Christof Meerwald asking:

"Can you please clarify the following case: a search engine wants to use descriptions from DMOZ in the search results (for sites listed in DMOZ) - does the search engine have to display the badge?"

I think it is a good and very interesting question. Having a answer would cast much more light over the subject than the very blog entry does. But there is still no answer there.

Does anybody here know what the answer is?

 

Editors are forbidden by AOL Legal from giving answers to DMOZ legal questions. I expect that Emily isn't permitted to give them either.

If you really want to know the answer, I suggest that you contact AOL Legal directly. Nobody else would be authoritative.

 

Slowdown Jimbo, hold your horses.

The question was:

and to answer it all she have to do is to say Yes or No based on the same set of Rules she based her post.

That wasn't legal question but request for her opinion if the Rule applies to Search Engines or not.
At your age Jim, you should know what is the difference between those two



fastreplies

 

Personally, I like “unique content” topic.

It says:

So, my question I guess goes to ODP Editors

Did it ever accrue to you that you are running DIRECTORY?

Let me remind you, that directory is not only about who has produced some products but also about who is in the business that sells it. So you understand better, the same product can be sold by, let say 100 stores and that is where directory comes in place, it tells people where they can to find that product even if all sellers located in the same City, State or Country.

Just listen to yourselves what you are saying.

As stupid as it can be, you saying that there is no need for another site to be added to DMOZ because we already have one site that has been offering that product without realizing that "unique" is not a “product” but the “store” that sells it.

If Yellow Pages God forbid adopts your way of thinking, then there will be only one store in Town listed in it for each Industry it represents. Like for example if Yellow Pages become ODP alike, we will see only: 1 Grocery Store, 1 Book Store etc.

Does it make any sense to any of you Mr. and Mrs. ODP Editor?



fastreplies

 

My dear, Emily has made a post in the blog with the only purpose of explaining in which cases should a dmoz-data user add a bandage to its website crediting DMOZ. If this information is a legal question, then she already violated that rule by writing that post!
The question is about a missing case in the original post. A completely natural question. Have you read that post at all?

 

I looked at your link and can't seem to locate where they said that... In fact, I don't see a mention of the ODP or DMOZ even in that site.

What is the actual legal team page for the ODP (Time Warner has one, as does AOL, in face, most of the sites owned by Time Warner have a legal page)? Or the actual contact information for the ODP? Or is this information still top secret, or heh... on broken pages (which, if I am not mistaken, is rights to get dmoz.org removed from the ODP ~ but I could be wrong)

 

Funny, no offesne mate but should not the AOL legal team be posting that blog post in the first place and replying to comments? i don't get it. I have my counter reply ready

 

True. DMOZ is their baby afterall.

 

The answer is very simple. DMOZ has no valid copyright on structure or content and you can use the ODP data in anyway you like without displaying anything.

DMOZ HAS NO COPYRIGHT.

 

AOL does not even claim trademark rights of DMOZ...

http://about.aol.com/aolnetwork/trademarks

 

@Q: Did you bother to read the first paragraph (my bolding)?

 

Well, that statement is there just in case the forget to mention something. You have a good idea about how much AOL cares about DMOZ when they forget to mention them. Or may be AOL is just choosing to forget. It's only natural for big companies to break apart of agonizing products and let them die as soon as they become useless. Don't forget big companies only care about money. Should we blame them for that?

 

when aol bough netscape was doing only because they wanted to dream to fight on browser market , with netscape they bough on package the ODP , thing is easy to understand , a major ISP ( because that's they are ) wanted to jump on advertising market owned and controlled by big G' .... to develop a new browser was too expensive for them and they tough if they will buy netscape witch was anyway at this time dieing on share-market .... well everyone knows I think what share from browser market netscape have lol ... and it's similar with the other things from the package witch aol bough at this time ... it's just some wrong product and wrong time to get it from investment point of view ... similar thing happens currently with skype project who was bough by ebay company but they didn't bough the copyright ownership of source code from original owners , now after few years they are sued they paid 3bill for skype , and now when they are trying to sell 70% with like 1.3 bill I think ... they got sued by original owners and most probably will lose everything . Makes you thinking '' why '' well ... most probably because of peoples who love to do things like our lovely editors from dmoz

 

search AOL's site for ANY mention of the ODP or DMOZ and you may find they "forgot to mention" them completely from the entirety of aol.com! In fact, they care enough about the trademark, they didn't even bother to update the netscape entries at the bottoms of the odp pages... and if you want to claim that netscape still owns the ODP, then that's all good and swell, but that is not something I've seen an editor say in a looooooooooooooooooooooong time.