Le lun. 18 janv. 2016 à 3:17, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:59 AM, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Nor am I concerned that our information might be used by people who oppose our principles. We ask just the same of our contributors--that the information they contribute may be used for ''any'' purpose.
My concern is when our CC-BY-SA (or CC0) user-generated information is not shared-alike AND it is a cost for the movement (ie a cost in terms of bandwidth and electricity). If Google harvests our information, using massively the API we provide, and they just make it a silo for them to use (for the Knowledge Graph, for example) and this hurts us, I'm wondering if we can do something about it. There are only very few players who can take all our information and use it as an internal asset, enriching it and NOT sharing it.
I don't think in binary, so for me there is no contradiction to have a CC-BY-SA content, but some caveat for big, big, big players. I'm not saying (nobody is) that we have to shift to a NC license. Just that I don't want our movement to be hurt by multi-billion dollars companies: I'm not an expert of the commons (I bet many people in this list are) so I'm genuinely interested in hearing opinions about this. Is such thing as "tragedy of the digital commons"? Can Google (or Amazon or Facebook) exploits us?
Now please tell me (gently, :-D) where is my mistake in this line of thought.
Aubrey
CC-BY-SA allows everyone (including big companies) to modify (for instance, to enrich) and not share-alike AS LONG AS their extended work is kept private. That means Facebook pages and Google infoboxes based on CC-BY-SA content ought to carry the CC-BY-SA license too, because they are distributed to an audience wider than the changes' copyright owners (usually the companies themselves).
CC0 obviously permits everything, including not sharing back at all.