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 +
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.".
As IANAL I have
little idea whether that is a good idea.
I think that for a community driven projects one should go for
/Finn Årup Nielsen