> It unclear what has been used from that page, there is text, code and images
> on it all under different licenses.
It's very clear to me. The code you linked to is simply a representation of
what nodes link to what other nodes by a directed arc. For example, the top
two sites labeled B and C point to each other. C doesn't point to anything
else and isn't pointed to by anything other than B.
The original network clearly directly matched the graphic including the
labeling of the sites by letter and matching links.
There is no code on the website which refers to this graphic in any way; in
fact, the algorithm text elsewhere on the page refers to a simplified 4-node
network with A, B, C, and D which doesn't match the image at all.
> Assuming it is this just this image, then it is based on this image
The "based on" is the linking of sites represented by arrows. For example,
these two lines in the removed code represent the bidirectional link in the
upper right of the image.
new char[]{'B', 'C'},
new char[]{'C', 'B'},
Of note, C only connects to B, and is connected to by B.
And sure, the image labeled with B and C is based on the non-labeled image with
smiley faces, so I'll concede that image, and even the exact network it
represents, may fall under CC-BY-SA, and thus it was correct to remove the old
code.
However, the PR changed to a different set of links, creating a different
graph. As a quick proof, there is no node like C in the previous version which
only has a single bidirectional link to another node, so it clearly does not
represent the same graph. There may be some similarities, but how much of a
difference is required?
Are you asserting that any directed graph is CC-BY-SA licensed? If not, what
is the threshold for difference that you would accept?
Would it be acceptable to generate a completely random graph using [1] and
represent that in the code?
[1] - http://bl.ocks.org/erkal/9746513
On 11/6/21, 9:58 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
Hi,
It unclear what has been used from that page, there is text, code and
images on it all under different licenses.
In general content on wikipedia is not in the public domain and care needs
to be taken with is use, also what “public domain” means varies. For how to
treat public domain works in an ASF project please see [1]. It would need to
mentioned in the LICENSE at a minimum.
Assuming it is this just this image, then it is based on this image [2]
which is in not public domain but CC-by-SA which complicates things.
I did suggest that the project uses the WIP disclaimer which is a good idea
until issue like this have been sorted out.
Kind Regards,
Justin
1.
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#handling-public-domain-licensed-works
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PageRank-hi-res.png
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
