Dmoz Category structure has a copyright or not?

Whether Dmoz structure has a copy right or not?

That is if we copy the dmoz structure and add our own links to the category whether we have to display Dmoz banner?

 

The ODP license is written by lawyers rather than normal people*, so it is a bit tortuous to read, but this phrase appears quite often:

So unless you want to risk running foul of the AOL legal department (which I expect has its own building!), it would be wise to use the correct attribution for anything you copy.
Note also that the license goes on to advise that

*Usual disclaimer: Some of my best friends, and in fact a close family member, are lawyers.

 

I wouldn't do it or reccommend that anyone do it - but if you were to just copy the category structure of dmoz then add your own links to it, I seriously doubt anything would happen.

People copy the entire directory (with the listings word for word) all the time without adding the attribution banner and all they ever say about it is "don't list them in dmoz", I have never heard of anyone being sued over it - has anyone else?

Anyway, that's too much work on an idea that's "been done". An original niche directory would probably do better...depends on what your goals are though.

 

DMOZ has borrowed the structure itself and it is part of public domain. AOL lawyers can claim anything they want but it is not worth the paper that it is written on unless you want to use as a toilet paper. AOL lawyers usually are very good on losing every case and paying out big damages.

Does DMOZ have any copyright on directory structure or content?

I discussed this intensively by referring to the existing copyright laws in above thread and the only thing that DMOZ editors could come up with was "but but it is written on our website the word copyright".

Anybody can write any BS they want on their web site but it doesn't mean jack if it is stupid and against current laws.

 

lol

Where did dmoz borrow the original structure from? It's a little different now, since editors have been adding and deleting categories for years, but still that only makes it a derivitave work and you can only claim copyright to the changes that you have made to a derivitave work that is in the public domain.

So just go get the original that's in the public domain. What is it?

 

If you spend some time in that thread and actually read the laws that was mentioned, you will know that copyright on derivative work still belongs to the original copyright holder. In this case, the original work was commissioned and paid by US government and it is part of public domain.
This is only one of the many problems that makes it impossible for DMOZ to have any copyright on directory structure or it's contents.

 

Yes, that's what I was saying. In some cases you can claim copyright to the changes you have made - but that's only if you have permission to use the original or if the original is in the public domain and yes I understand you cannot claim copyright in the original.

But anyway this is interesting. I never knew where dmoz came from originally. Just out of curiousity, is the original category stucture around anywhere anymore?

 

Here is archive.org copy of the directory when it was about 6 months old which would be very similar to the original ontology http://web.archive.org/web/19990117075314/directory.mozilla.org/

The directory was loosely based on the usenet structure. The hierarchies of usenet at that time were comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci. soc. and talk.

You will note the similarity, but it quite clear even from the beginning that it was to be a derivative of something in the public domain. However this is all a mute point as I doubt that AOL would ever spend the considerable money required to seek redress adainst the tinpot directories who plagiarise the the works of the volunteer editors. It is conceivable that one day they might rattle a few cages.

 

ODP uses a hierarchical ontology scheme for organizing site listings. Listings on a similar topic are grouped into categories, which can then include smaller categories.

Gnuhoo (original name) borrowed its initial ontology from Usenet. For example, the topic covered by the comp.ai.alife newsgroup was represented by the category Computers/AI/Artificial_Life.

http://www.answers.com/topic/open-directory-project

USENET was financed by American government.

I think google has an archive of usenet going back to beginning of 1980s.

 

Here is a puzzle for you all

Spot the difference between

and

 

Here is a suggestion for you, read my old thread which I linked to. Usenet is only one of the problems, there are many other problems such as short words like you mentioned can not be copyrighted.

 

I copied most of the DMOZ categories, and added a few of my own. It shall be ok.

 

It is OK but now that you have posted here, they will add a red note to your site that it should not be listed in DMOZ. They are so childish in their actions that it is not even funny.