Well, countries have generally decided you can't copyright factual information, and they did that for a reason.

In the EU, it is illegal to copy a database of another entity even if it contains factual information (you can copy individual facts, but not a DB). Source: I realized that when I wondered if it was possible to copy names from Wikipedia into OpenStreetmap. The Wikimedia foundation ("owner" of the DB) is unlikely to sue OSM.

Wikipedia data is available under a choice of open licenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_co... They're unlikely to sue because 1. They don't want to, making information freely available is kinda their thing, and 2. They'd lose.

The ODbL license is not compatible with the Creative Commons license. (1) I know about their goal, and I also know that they are eager to collaborate with OpenStreeMap. So they would the sue. (2) I think it is the Database Directive of the EU which protects the databases, even if it is made of factual information.

To be more specific about my case, I wanted to import into OpenStreetMap the latin names ("romaji") of places from Wikipédia. But I had to check if it was allowed around the world. I read that in Australia it is not a problem, but it is hard to know about the rest of the world.

Sometimes. Apparently it's not actually enforced fully in all of the countries? And it's a pretty new law.

That's not copyright. You can still enforce a licence on the data you provide. E.g. Exchanges do this all the time with market price data.

Sure, you can make licenses, but if someone gets a copy outside of the licensed channel, you have no recourse.

Not sure about that... In general, if you buy a stolen car, it's still stolen, and while you won't be held criminally responsible, you'll still lose your money. I guess it's the same with data licences.

It's not really a license on the data. Data licenses are based on copyright laws, and grant permission under them.

Instead it's a contract with a nondisclosure clause, and contracts only bind the participants.

It's also not a trade secret, with access being sold so openly.

I didn't say it was illegal.

They just didn't do the groundwork.

And I'm sure copying maps is illegal.

Place information? Hmmm. Maybe it should be too.

>I'm sure copying maps is illegal.

You can't directly copy the artistry, things like label sizing and placement, but you can copy every road and city.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street

>I didn't say it was illegal.

I'm not commenting directly on the legality. I'm trying to refer to the deeper reasons that lead it to be legal. If it's truly ripping someone off to copy facts that they painstakingly collected through their sweat of the brow, why is there a specific exemption from copyright?

Google respects robots.txt.

I'm sure you say you do.