Sorry for asking this question again ,I want to know whether I can use Dmoz structure in my directory
DMOZ does not have any copyright. Any claim to the contrary will be ridiculous as it is shown in the below thread. DMOZ does not have copyright.
Freewebspace, you might want to take advise from another source other than gworld. Try: http://dmoz.org/help/getdata.html http://dmoz.org/license.html
Where I changed my mind on the copyright issue was this bit 1. If the Open Directory in whole or in part, or any derivative work thereof, is made available via the Internet or internal network/intranet and/or information contained therein is directly accessed or linked via the Internet or internal network/intranet then you must provide the appropriate Netscape attribution statement At the same time it encourages editors to mine other directories, including providing officially sanctioned tools to make that mining more efficient, thereby completely overriding any copyright claim the mined directory owner might have over the resulting "derivative work thereof". Interestingly, when you read the Yahoo directory copyright links, no attempt is made at all to claim copyright over the structure or the listings. Clearly Yahoo does not think it has directory structure copyright, clearly DMOZ does not really believe that it is possible to copyright protect derivative works from directories or it wouldn't encourage editors to blatently breach such potential copyright of others on a daily basis. I do think ODP is entitled to add terms to a download service they provide - if you use the service, pay the price; and has copyright over the DMOZ and ODP brand which probably extends to the look and feel. But, if you are developing a unique directory, apart from using the base structure that is shared with Yahoo, other directories, and derived from USENET, at some point, for practical purposes you will diverge from the DMOZ structure as DMOZ did from USENET. At that point you create your own copyright structure. If you take the whole DMOZ structure, lock, stock, and barrel, then it is possible that you may breach copyright if you don't give attribution. With most Open Source projects (which DMOZ isn't but even so) copyright and licensing can be applied to bolt-on elements though not over the core code. I can't see anything in a typical DMOZ Regional structure that is capable of being copyright - it is largely an intuitive and derived taxonomy. Where you might come unstuck is if you use the exact same category descriptions, FAQs, Guidelines, etc. since they are really the only truly unique and therefore copyrightable elements of DMOZ.
I may agree with bizzrie but if anyone does challenge the use of the data, bizzrie, I and especially gworld will not be there to make your case. It will be on your shoulders to defend your position if you decide not to follow what DMOZ has layed down as their license agreement.
Easy answer, use core USENET terms and/or those you find DMOZ shares with other major directories such as Yahoo. You won't find much in the way of variation.
Wouldn't that be nice. The answer is yes or no depending on whether you judge DMOZ can copyright any or all of the directory structure. We give you information to help make that decision, you make the decision.
Because I am cuurently working on a directory project to haveas much as categories as Dmoz I have already finshed one architecture in arts category but for others I am thinking upon it thats what I am asking this question here
That is over 600,000 categories. How are you going to fill them? What about the web space requirement? Etc. If you intend to take the RDF dump, structure and data, to populate your directory then you are using a download service with license terms attached regardless of copyright issues. If you intend to take the 600,000 categories and populate them yourself then be aware that it took over 70,000 people over 8 years to do that.
Do you have any argument for your claims, except being a DMOZ parrot? I mean anybody can read those terms on DMOZ site, in what way you parroting those term are useful in this discussion?
I havent made any claims. You are assuming he has seen what is published at dmoz. All im doing is making him aware of dmoz terms and where they are published. Your statement is contradition to those terms. You may not agree with them and you could have all the arguements you want but are you gonna represent as legal counsel if you are wrong, gworld? I dont beleive anyone here, including myself, is by any means an authority on the subject so lets stop pretending to be. What brizzie said here is probably the best advise. I'm sure you'll want to get the last word in though, gworld ;p
You did that with your first post. It does not matter how many times you or DMOZ parrot the same thing, it doesn't give DMOZ any copyright to the structure or content as any person wit a least amount of intelligence can notice that it is not a valid copyright according to the copyright laws which I have quoted in my posts. You can do something positive here, why don't you tell him, how many directory sites are in the DMOZ enemy list that should not be listed because they use DMOZ data without any copyright notice? Don't you think if there was a valid copyright they would have done something by now?
Well if we are going to nitpick, I betting most listings can be credit to a few dozen editors, they are the combat troops rest is only logistical tail to give enemy something else to shoot at. So if I copy my former categories to my website and continue working on them DMOZ might ban me but at the same time DMOZ can steal my own directory content and add it to DMOZ?
That is correct. According to DMOZ "interpretation" of copyright laws, directory owners have no copyright over their own original material but when the same material is copied to DMOZ by an editor then DMOZ has copyright over it.
To bad my categories are totally obscure niche which nobody will maintain now that I'm gone; it would be cool to test Google DCMA complaints and get DMOZ banned!