On 16.06.2016 17:45, nicolasmaia(a)tutanota.com wrote:
Picking licenses is a complex topic, and it is extremely important to
some people -- projects have split over this. I understand. But do
emotions always have to be put above facts? Is the cause justifying all
means, even against our own principles of rigour and truthfulness that
are otherwise so important in our projects? Here is what I mean:
You say that Microsoft donated to Wikidata. Is it possible that you have
just made this up since it fits the picture you want to paint? No
concerns about misinforming your readers here?
You claim that Google is using Wikidata content. I have not seen any
proof of this. I have challenged Mr. Kolbe about this before, and indeed
it seems that he is now avoiding this claim in the text you cite. The
fact that Google stopped working on the Freebase imports does not seem
to suggest that they are very interested in the data right now .
Maybe you have new information you would like to share with us? It would
surely be of interest to many people here.
You mention "vain threats made by those who wish to use us as mere free
labor for their enterprises". Which threats? Who made them? What are
they threatening with? Are you just trying to stir the emotions of the
reader, making them wish to rebel against some imagined enemy?
We can discuss which licence will lead to the best return of investment
for the Wikidata community, if it is desirable that restrictive data
licenses become legally binding world wide, and who would really benefit
from this change in legislation(s). But being untruthful for the sake of
argument is not a good start for such a discussion.
 I think this is nothing to be ashamed of -- Google is huge and their
own internal data is likely much larger than what we have in Wikidata
today. We may get there yet. Most importantly, our data is available
freely while Google's is not.
Faculty of Computer Science
Technische Universität Dresden
+49 351 463 38486