Den 28-11-2012 19:37, Platonides skrev:
On 28/11/12 17:58, Luca Martinelli wrote:
I share Denny's worries.
If we adopt ODBL, all WMF projects *will have to* add a note about structured data taken from Wikidata (like "data are released in ODBL" or similar), or they should be bi-licensed (CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported + ODBL what.ever).
If we keep licensing Wikidata with a CC0 (which is, in fact, a PD-like license), that allows Wikipedia to re-use data with CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported without any problem. Then, when CC-BY-SA 4.0 will be released, we can migrate ALL projects to the new license.
I don't see any other possibilities - I do know something about licensing and stuff, but I may be wrong.
Dual licensing under ODBL + CC-BY-SA? Or even ODBL + CC-BY-SA + GFDL, to keep the legacy license as well.
You could also ODBL with an additional permission to relicense it under CC-BY-SA or GFDL when aggregated with another work (slightly different than a dual licensing, but pretty much the same).
I suppose it can get complicated when you move between data, text and code. If Wikipedia enables Lua and Lua programs are under GPL. You can have GPL code that automatically reads ODbL data and generates content that is included on CC BY-SA Wikipedia.
For my "Brede Wiki" I have added a four-fold license and the statement "Or any copyleft licenses similar in spirit.". http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/Brede_Wiki:Copyrights As IANAL I have little idea whether that is a good idea.
I think that for a community driven projects one should go for share-alike licenses.
/Finn Årup Nielsen