Hoi, The question if CC is the right license for data is a bit limited; what CC license?. There are many licenses available by Creative Commons. When you consider facts, on their own they cannot be copyrighted and consequently licensed. A CC-0 license would work really well for them. Thanks,       Gerard On 2 April 2012 14:30, Alexrk <alexrk2(a)yahoo.de> wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Yep, until now we always have been discussing and are strongly leaning towards CC-0 for the data content, and CC-BY-SA for the textual content of Wikidata, i.e. the project pages, discussion pages, etc. We are fully aware that most CC licenses are not adequate for data. Cheers, Denny 2012/4/2 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> -- 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

A few quick points: * The main lack of suitability of CC licenses for databases is that they don't explicitly (with a few exceptions in the case of certain jurisdiction "ports" which we can ignore) grant permissions that mitigate non-copyright database rights. If not for this, ODbL and some government-specific licenses such as UK OGL would probably not have been motivated enough to exist * However, the bar for plain old copyright restricting databases is unfortunately low, especially outside the US, which may in part explain use of various CC licenses for various databases from the very beginning of CC; some background at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26283 * Version 4.0 of the various CC licenses will almost certainly license sui generis database rights and similar just as they do copyright. I would hope that Wikimedia projects (in general, ignoring Wikidata for now) will move to 4.0 shortly after it is done, otherwise it won't be actually done IMO. :) 1st draft announced today http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 * Although it may not have happened if CC 3.0 or before licenses explicitly addressed database rights, ODbL is similar to CC-BY-SA in that they're both copyleft/reciprocal/viral/hereditary licenses, they are quite different in detail, most significantly: - ODbL requires machine-readable source (entire derivative database, or patch); CC-BY-SA has no source requirement - ODbL allows for "produced works" (eg a rendered map) not subject to same license requirement; if work derivative of CC-BY-SA, same license must be used (modulo exceptions & limitations of course) * The most significant issue is not a difference exactly: ODbL and CC-BY-SA are each only compatible with themselves (and note that CC0 is donor compatible with them both, but obviously not recipient compatible) * I would guess the first thing to figure out is whether compatibility is needed, and where. At one extreme, Wikidata would have no choice but to use CC-BY-SA as that's what other Wikimedia projects are using, and it will be ingesting data from. At the other extreme, that data is all public domain and or there's community agreement on boundary of data and everything else, and Wikidata data can be CC0, ODbL, or whatever else is deemed to be the best fit. IANAL etc, Mike On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 07:33, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou <b.ooghe(a)gmail.com> wrote: of It denny.vrandecic(a)wikimedia.de> of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikidata#Is_CC_the_right_license_for_da… unter _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 16:43, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou <b.ooghe(a)gmail.com> wrote: such data 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. the Much appreciated. :) Mike _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l