Making my directory : copying DMOZ structure is OK?

Im working to add a directory to my site. Im using phpLD free. I thinked at what structure to give to my directory and after some thinking i concluded that copying DMOZ categories, exactly (100%), only the first level + semnificative sub-sub-categories, its the best way for my site.

I think that DMOZ don't own copyright to their category tree but it never hurt to ask : can i have any problem for using the same category tree like DMOZ ?

Probably this question belongs more to the legal section but people who read this forum are more familiar with directories.

P.S.
At this moment i finished my delphi program to import DMOZ structure in the `PLD_CATEGORY`table, i can add 2000 top categories in under 10 minutes : this info is only for braging lol

Just want to hear some opinions before i do this, thanks !

 

I should think it will be fine - it is the 'open' directory after all!

 

I think you can do it ..

 

You could PM orlady (a DMOZ Admin who posts here) and ask her EvcRo, assuming she doesn't notice the thread and answer here.

 

How could they not? Its the collective work of their editors.

 

He's not talking about the listings in the directory. He's talking about the categories.

 

The category structure is also the collective work of the editors.

How do you think new categories are named? One editor will post an idea for a new category, it will be discussed, the possible areas for it to belong will also be discussed, a decision will be made, and it will be implemented. Either a new category will be added or the suggesting editor will find out that it already exists, just not where s/he thought it was.

 

Where do you think the structure of the 590,00 categories came from, the back of cornflakes packet? There are many hundreds of hours of work in defining and refining the structure, not to mention building the @link and related links network.

 

Good luck on trying to copyright a category name

 

The question related to the category tree, not the names. No one is suggesting that the individual category names should be protected.

 

The original structure came from Usenet.

 

The top level did although it was modified.

 

I see. So DMOZ got it from USENET and now you think DMOZ owns it? And by the way - what do you think comprises a "category tree"?

Why not just try to copyright the entire English language. That oughta do it.

 

The structure of the odp is not the same as usenet. It never was. Go and have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Seven

A category tree is the taxonomy of how the categories relate to one another.

My you get carried away sometimes. By the way the “category tree” also spans many languages so if DMOZ were to follow your vexatious suggestion they have to copyright all written language.

 

DMOZ has a list of known DMOZ enemies that they will add your name to if you copy the category tree and then try to find as many site as possible that you own and as a revenge add it to a list that those sites should not be listed in DMOZ.

That is all they can do.

 

And does DMOZ have plans to do this?

Look, DMOZ categories are basically nothing more than a bunch of words used to describe categories of websites. They aren't unique word. They aren't unique categories. They aren't copyrighted material.

I suspect DMOZ would even have trouble trying to protect the site listings within their categories but that at least would be plausible. As I said in Round 1, good luck trying to copyright a category name.

 

Oh, you're in luck, neb. The DMOZ legal expert, lmocr, is reading this thread. No doubt grandma will have the definitive word on this issue, as she does with everything else related to DMOZ.

 

A book is just a bunch of words. Are you saying that books should not have copyright? Of course not. The key is that the bunch of words are joined together. Just like a book, just like a category tree.

 

If they are not "joined together" in a unique way, you can't copyright them. As I said, you MIGHT have some hope of copyrighting the category contents - not the categories themselves.

 

A post in the internal ODP forum by someone-that-would-know says it was more that top level categories.