Forum Moderators: open
Just planning to set up a directory of my own and have read that the DMOZ catagory structure is copyrighted - not referring to the actual content here - I'm talking about the basic folder structure of catagories within catagories.
This has me confused - because just about every directory out there seems to follow the DMOZ structure (not talking about DMOZ clones, which obviously do) - so is it legal or not?
Common sense would say that organising things in the same way as DMOZ would make it easier for users - because they know what catagories to list their site in - but I don't want to open myself up to copyright problems later on!
Re-use of the directory structure is not explicitly covered in the ODP license, but I know that in the past, other entities have obtained (free as in no-cost and IIRC "no 'consideration' in exchange") permission to use just the directory structure.
What do you have in mind? A website directory, or some other re-use?
Caveat: I'm just an editor, and can't give or withhold permission; for a formal answer you'd probably have to contact "staff at dmoz dot com".
BUT: since the ODP content was created to give away, it's (I think) fairly likely that they'd be willing to give you permission to copy that part -- but you'd be safer to ask.
But I may have read more into it than was said, and of course if you're referring to just copying ODP listings with the categories, yes, absolutely, "duplicate content abounds."
"No part of this publication may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, including photocopying, recording, taping or information storage without the WRITTEN permission of the publisher.
This is interesting: "The publication - in whole or part - may not be used to prepare or compile other directories." "Measures have been adopted during the preparation of this directory which will assist the publishers to PROTECT their copyright." But it only
mentions legal action about the use of unauthorised data. I guess that means the companies held within.
Still seeing as Reed invented the categories, they must surely belong to Reed. Also if they were copied exactly, whoever copied them could be mistaken as a Reed company? Possibly? Maybe then Reed would have a case?
I dunno as I'm not a lawyer.
I think he'd like to make a general directory covering broad areas, with folders within folders, named in a similar logical manner as that employed by DMOZ. This concept is not copyrighted, and cannot be copyrighted.
However, if you were to go to DMOZ and copy the exact names or exact structure of their folders, that could potentially be a problem. Not because they have some kind of patent on it, but for the same reason you can't copy another person's "my favorite links" page.
But I may have read the post incorrectly. Always consult a lawyer if you're unsure.
>>> If I understood correctly, tiebreaker was going to create a completely new directory or other reference, without using ODP LISTINGS, but using ODP CATEGORIES. So there wouldn't be the usual "duplicate content."
Exactly Correct
I don't want a scrap of content from the actual listings, or from anything else - I just thought it would be sensible to organise my catagories in the same fashion.
Naturally, I'm aware of the whole dmoz clones / duplicate content issues - so I'm not interested in taking any dmoz content - not even a tiny amount to seed it.
In fact, I'm so anxious to make sure that everything is 100% unique, quality content, that I may decide to go with a directory structure of my own creation too - just to avoid the remote chance that someone may confuse it with a dmoz clone!
I'm pretty sure dmoz would give permission to use the directory structure - but it would be a problem for me if they required a credit on the website - I don't want the word 'dmoz' published anywhere - even in this innocent context - for the same reasons as above.
I will probably email "staff at dmoz dot org" as suggested to clarify the issue - the copyright statement on the site is not exactly clear on the issue of the directory structure - although I know it is copyrighted.
>>> If I understood correctly, tiebreaker was going to create a completely new directory or other reference, without using ODP LISTINGS, but using ODP CATEGORIES. So there wouldn't be the usual "duplicate content."
Exactly Correct
I don't want a scrap of content from the actual listings, or from anything else - I just thought it would be sensible to organise my catagories in the same fashion.
Naturally, I'm aware of the whole dmoz clones / duplicate content issues - so I'm not interested in taking any dmoz content - not even a tiny amount to seed it.
In fact, I'm so anxious to make sure that everything is 100% unique, quality content, that I may decide to go with a directory structure of my own creation too - just to avoid the remote chance that someone may confuse it with a dmoz clone!
I'm pretty sure dmoz would give permission to use the directory structure - but it would be a problem for me if they required a credit on the website - I don't want the word 'dmoz' published anywhere - even in this innocent context - for the same reasons as above.
I will probably email "staff at dmoz dot org" as suggested to clarify the issue - the copyright statement on the site is not exactly clear on the issue of the directory structure - although I know it is copyrighted.
Now I've triple posted! - stop me someone :-)
They have a section named "Using ODP data"
[dmoz.org...]
Which starts with "Anyone can use the ODP's data. It is available to the general public, and 100% free to use."
Of course, you must agree their license.
That way is a bit harder - something else that I need to spend time planning before I start - but it's got to be better in the long run.
However.. I understand that the bare bones of the ontology (going waaay back to 1998) were based on Usenet news, which is a similarly themed hierarchical structure. Some careful study of the way Usenet is structured might allow you to build a workable directory.
So I think your best bet is to develop a taxonomy that fits your way of thinking, your interests, and the kinds of sites you intend to list -- using the ODP taxonomy will be harder than you think.
But I (and, I think, any other ODP editors) would be happy to see you use its taxonomy. It's your choice.
