Yes, that makes sense.
Mike
2012/4/3 Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrandecic(a)wikimedia.de>de>:
Mike, all,
thank you very much for this input. So do I understand it correctly that
during development and testing, we can can go with CC-0, and later relicense
to whatever seems suitable, which is possible with CC-0?
To go now with a license that will prevent us from migrating later, either
CC-BY-SA 4.0 or ODbL, seems to be too early to decide now.
Cheers,
Denny
2012/4/3 Mike Linksvayer <ml(a)gondwanaland.com>
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 16:43, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou <b.ooghe(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I fully agree.
If CC4 comes before any decision is to be made with WikiData's licence
it
would only be natural to use CC-BY-SA for data as well as for content.
My
pleading for ODbL is as a temporary fix since right now, in countries
such
as France, releasing data under CC-anything basically means CC0 on the
data
without producers using it even knowing it (latest one yesterday here
data.visitprovence.com )
I don't think that's true. (Following probably of near zero interest
for wikidata, other than noting how annoying the topic is -- I almost
joked in previous email that if wonderful Microdata/Microformats/RDFa
discussion can be put off, hopefully joyous license discussion can
too. :-))
In the case of version 3.0 jurisdiction ports in the EU, database
rights are waived, but that's a long way from CC0 -- conditions of the
license are explicitly waived when use of the licensed work only
involves the exercise of database rights and not copyright -- given
the low bar to copyright, that's not often. CC0 unambiguously waives
copyright and related rights. Given a database under CC0, recipient
has no worries (assuming good provenance). Given a database under
CC-BY-SA-3.0-FR, recipient has to comply or figure out whether the
database is subject to copyright at all, which different lawyers will
likely give different answers to, meaning risk not obviated.
In the case of other versions, eg 3.0 unported, which Wikimedia
projects use, database rights aren't addressed at all, so the
situation is not CC0, but the reverse, default database rights. Which
sounds far worse, but then I know of no non-theoretical complaint in
which this has come up, and it is possible there's an implicit
license.
I should have linked to
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Data#How_.28if_at_all.29_are_sui_generis_da…
which explains some of this in a few more words.
I was only arguing in favor to pursue the common
goods attitude behind
the
copyleft choice that was made before for Wikipedia.
Much appreciated. :)
Mike
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Eisenacher Straße 2 | 10777 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 |
http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l