Good (IMHO) summary by Yair Rand on CC-0 vs. CC-BY-SA for Wiktionary. Federico -------- Messaggio inoltrato -------- Oggetto:     Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0 Data:     Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:05:54 -0500 Mittente:     Yair Rand &lt;yyairrand(a)gmail.com&gt; Rispondi-a:     Discussion list for the Wikidata project. &lt;wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; A:     Discussion list for the Wikidata project. &lt;wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Wikidata is not replacing Wiktionary. Wikidata did not replace Wikipedia, and force all articles to be under CC-0. Structured data for Commons doesn't replace all Commons media with CC-0-licensed content. They didn't even set up parallel projects to hold CC-0 articles or media. There is no reason to believe that structured data for Wiktionary would do any of these things. Wikidata is for holding structured data, and only structured data. The fact that France is in Europe is not, independently, copyrightable. The fact that File:Vanessa_indica-Silent_Valley-2016-08-14-002.jpg is a picture of a butterfly is not copyrightable. The facts that "balloons" is the plural of "balloon", and that "feliĉiĝi" is an intransitive verb in Esperanto, are not copyrightable. Even if they were copyrightable, copyrighting them independently would harm their potential reuse, as elements of a database, as has been previously explained. A Wikipedia article is copyrightable. Licensing it under CC-BY-SA does not particularly harm its reuse, and makes it so that reuse can happen with attribution. Wikidata includes links to Wikipedia articles, and while the links are under CC-0, the linked content is under CC-BY-SA. Similarly for Commons content. Wikipedia articles and Commons Media are not structured data, and as such, they do not belong in Wikidata. Elements of prose in Wiktionary, such as definitions, appendices, extensive usage notes and notes on grammar and whatnot, are copyrightable. Similar to Wikipedia articles, licensing them under CC-BY-SA would not particularly harm their reuse, as attribution is completely feasible. They are also not structured data, and can not be made into structured data. Wikidata will not be laundering this data to CC-0, nor will it be setting up a parallel project to duplicate the efforts under a license which is not appropriate for the type of content. Attempting to license the database's contents under CC-BY-SA would not ensure attribution, and would harm reuse. I fail to see any potential benefits to using the more restrictive license. Attribution will be required where it is possible (in Wiktionary proper), and content will be as reusable as possible in areas where requiring attribution isn't feasible (in Wikidata). There's no real conflict here. -- Yair Rand 2017-11-29 16:45 GMT-05:00 Mathieu Stumpf Guntz &lt;psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org <mailto:psychoslave@culture-libre.org>>:     Saluton ĉiuj,     I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta Tremendous     Wiktionary User Group talk page <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#An_answer_to_Lydia_general_thinking_about_Wikidata_and_CC-0>,     because I'm interested to have a wider feedback of the community on     this point. Whether you think that my view is completely misguided     or that I might have a few relevant points, I'm extremely interested     to know it, so please be bold.     Before you consider digging further in this reading, keep in mind     that I stay convinced that Wikidata is a wonderful project and I     wish it a bright future full of even more amazing things than what     it already brung so far. My sole concern is really a license issue.     Bellow is a copy/paste of the above linked message:     Thank you Lydia Pintscher     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29>     for taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer     <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29/CC-0>     miss too many important points to solve all concerns which have been     raised.     Notably, there is still no beginning of hint in it about where the     decision of using CC0 exclusively for Wikidata came from. But as     this inquiry on the topic <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/fr:Recherche:La_licence_CC-0_de_Wikidata,_origine_du_choix,_enjeux,_et_prospections_sur_les_aspects_de_gouvernance_communautaire_et_d%E2%80%99%C3%A9quit%C3%A9_contributive>     advance, an answer is emerging from it. It seems that Wikidata     choice toward CC0 was heavily influenced by Denny Vrandečić, who –     to make it short – is now working in the Google Knowledge Graph     team. Also it worth noting that Google funded a quarter of the     initial development work. Another quarter came from the Gordon and     Betty Moore Foundation, established by Intel co-founder. And half     the money came from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's Institute for     Artificial Intelligence (AI2)[1] <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-1>.     To state it shortly in a conspirational fashion, Wikidata is the     puppet trojan horse of big tech hegemonic companies into the realm     of Wikimedia. For a less tragic, more argumentative version, please     see the research project (work in progress, only chapter 1 is in     good enough shape, and it's only available in French so far). Some     proofs that this claim is completely wrong are welcome, as it would     be great that in fact that was the community that was the driving     force behind this single license choice and that it is the best     choice for its future, not the future of giant tech companies. This     would be a great contribution to bring such a happy light on this     subject, so we can all let this issue alone and go back contributing     in more interesting topics.     Now let's examine the thoughts proposed by Lydia.     Wikidata is here to give more people more access to more knowledge.         So far, it makes it matches Wikimedia movement stated goal. This means we want our data to be used as widely as possible.         Sure, as long as it rhymes with equity. As in /Our strategic         direction: Service and //*Equity*/ <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity>.         Just like we want freedom for everybody as widely as possible.         That is, starting where it confirms each others freedom. Because         under this level, freedom of one is murder and slavery of others.     CC-0 is one step towards that.         That's a thesis, you can propose to defend it but no one have to         agree without some convincing proof.     Data is different from many other things we produce in Wikimedia in     that it is aggregated, combined, mashed-up, filtered, and so on much     more extensively.         No it's not. From a data processing point of view, everything is         data. Whether it's stored in a wikisyntax, in a relational         database or engraved in stone only have a commodity side effect.         Whether it's a random stream of bit generated by a dumb chipset         or some encoded prose of Shakespeare make no difference. So from         this point of view, no, what Wikidata store is not different         from what is produced anywhere else in Wikimedia projects.    Sure, the way it's structured does extremely ease many things.         But this is not because it's data, when elsewhere there would be         no data. It's because it enforce data to be stored in a way that         ease aggregation, combination, mashing-up, filtering and so on.     Our data lives from being able to write queries over millions of     statements, putting it into a mobile app, visualizing parts of it on     a map and much more.         Sure. It also lives from being curated from millions[2] <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-2>         of benevolent contributors, or it would be just a useless pile         of random bytes.     This means, if we require attribution, in a huge number of cases     attribution would need to go back to potentially millions of editors     and sources (even if that data is not visible in the end result but     only helped to get the result).         No, it doesn't mean that.         First let's recall a few basics as it seems the whole answer         makes confusion between attribution and distribution of         contributions under the same license as the original.         Attribution is crucial for traceability and so for reliable and         trusted knowledge that we are targeting within the Wikimedia         movement. The "same license" is the sole legal guaranty of         equity contributors have. That's it, trusted knowledge and         equity are requirements for the Wikimedia movement goals. That         means withdrawing this requirements is withdrawing this goals.        Now, what would be the additional cost of storing sources in         Wikidata? Well, zero cost. Actually, it's already here as the         "reference" attribute is part of the Wikibase item structure. So         attribution is not a problem, you don't have to put it in front         of your derived work, just look at a Wikipedia article: until         you go to history, you have zero attribution visible, and it's         ok. It's also have probably zero or negligible computing cost,         as it doesn't have to be included in all computations, it just         need to be retrievable on demand.         What would be the additional cost of storing licenses for each         item based on its source? Well, adding a license attribute might         help, but actually if your reference is a work item, I guess it         might comes with a "license" statement, so zero additional cost.         Now for letting user specify under which free licenses they         publish their work, that would just require an additional         attribute, a ridiculous weight when balanced with equity         concerns it resolves.         Could that prevent some uses for some actors? Yes, that's         actually the point, preventing abuse of those who doesn't want         to act equitably. For all other actors a "distribute under same         condition" is fine.     This is potentially computationally hard to do and and depending on     where the data is used very inconvenient (think of a map with     hundreds of data points in a mobile app).         OpenStreetMap which use ODbL, a copyleft attributive license, do         exactly that too, doesn't it? By the way, allowing a license by         item would enable to include OpenStreetMap data in WikiData,         which is currently impossible due to the CC0 single license         policy of the project. Too bad, it could be so useful to have         this data accessible for Wikimedia projects, but who cares? This is a burden on our re-users that I do not want to impose on them.         Wait, which re-users? Surely one might expect that Wikidata         would care first of re-users which are in the phase with         Wikimedia goal, so surely needs of Wikimedia community in         particular and Free/Libre Culture in general should be         considered. Do this re-users would be penalized by a copyleft         license? Surely no, or they wouldn't use it extensively as they         do. So who are this re-users for who it's thought preferable,         without consulting the community, to not annoy with questions of         equity and traceability?     It would make it significantly harder to re-use our data and be in     direct conflict with our goal of spreading knowledge.         No, technically it would be just as easy as punching a button on         a computer to do that rather than this. What is in direct         conflict with our clearly stated goals emerging from the 2017         community consultation is going against equity and traceability.         You propose to discard both to satisfy exogenous demands which         should have next to no weight in decision impacting so deeply         the future of our community.     Whether data can be protected in this way at all or not depends on     the jurisdiction we are talking about. See this Wikilegal on on     database rights     <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights> for more     details.         It says basically that it's applicable in United States and         Europe on different legal bases and extents. And for the rest of         the world, it doesn't say it doesn't say nothing can apply, it         states nothing.     So even if we would have decided to require attribution it would     only be enforceable in some jurisdictions.         What kind of logic is that? Maybe it might not be applicable in         some country, so let's withdraw the few rights we have. Ambiguity, when it comes to legal matters, also unfortunately often     means that people refrain from what they want to to for fear of     legal repercussions. This is directly in conflict with our goal of     spreading knowledge.         Economic inequality, social inequity and legal imbalance might         also refrain people from doing what they want, as they fear         practical repercussions. CC0 strengthen this discrimination         factors by enforcing people to withdraw the few rights they have         to weight against the growing asymmetry that social structures         are concomitantly building. So CC0 as unique license choice is         in direct conflict with our goal of *equitably* spreading         knowledge.         Also it seems like this statement suggest that releasing our         contributions only under CC0 is the sole solution to diminish         legal doubts. Actually any well written license would do an         equal job regarding this point, including many copyleft licenses         out there. So while associate a clear license to each data item         might indeed diminish legal uncertainty, it's not an argument at         all for enforcing CC0 as sole license available to contributors.         Moreover, just putting a license side by side with a work does         not ensure that the person who made the association was legally         allowed to do so. To have a better confidence in the legitimacy         of a statement that a work is covered by a certain license,         there is once again a traceability requirement. For example,         Wikidata currently include many items which were imported from         misc. Wikipedia versions, and claim that the derived work         obtained – a set of items and statements – is under CC0. That is         a hugely doubtful statement and it alarmingly looks like license         laundering <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/license_laundering>.         This is true for Wikipedia, but it's also true for any source on         which a large scale extraction and import are operated, whether         through bots or crowd sourcing.         So the Wikidata project is currently extremely misplaced to give         lessons on legal ambiguity, as it heavily plays with legal blur         and the hope that its shady practises won't fall under too much         scrutiny.     Licenses that require attribution are often used as a way to try to     make it harder for big companies to profit from openly available     resources.         No there are not. They are used as /a way to try to make it         harder for big companies to profit from openly available         resources/ *in inequitable manners*. That's completely         different. Copyleft licenses give the same rights to big         companies and individuals in a manner that lower socio-economic         inequalities which disproportionally advantage the former. The thing is there seems to be no indication of this working.         Because it's not trying to enforce what you pretend, so of         course it's not working for this goal. But for the goal that         copyleft licenses aims at, there are clear evidences that yes it         works.     Big companies have the legal and engineering resources to handle     both the legal minefield and the technical hurdles easily.         There is no pitfall in copyleft licenses. Using war material         analogy is disrespectful. That's true that copyleft licenses         might come with some constraints that non-copyleft free licenses         don't have, but that the price for fostering equity. And it's a         low price, that even individuals can manage, it might require a         very little extra time on legal considerations, but on the other         hand using the free work is an immensely vast gain that worth         it. In Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next         library <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html> is         stated /proprietary software developers have the advantage of         money; free software developers need to make advantages for each         other/. This might be generalised as /big companies have the         advantage of money; free/libre culture contributors need to make         advantages for each other/. So at odd with what pretend this         fallacious claims against copyleft licenses, they are not a         "minefield and the technical hurdles" that only big companies         can handle. All the more, let's recall who financed the initial         development of Wikidata: only actors which are related to big         companies.     Who it is really hurting is the smaller start-up, institution or     hacker who can not deal with it.         If this statement is about copyleft licenses, then this is just         plainly false. Smaller actors have more to gain in preserving         mutual benefit of the common ecosystem that a copyleft license         fosters.     With Wikidata we are making structured data about the world     available for everyone.         And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license         to be achieved.     We are leveling the playing field to give those who currently don’t     have access to the knowledge graphs of the big companies a chance to     build something amazing.         And that's great. But that doesn't require CC0 as sole license.         Actually CC0 makes it a less sustainable project on this point,         as it allows unfair actors to take it all, add some interesting         added value that our community can not afford, reach/reinforce         an hegemonic position in the ecosystem with their own closed         solution. And, ta ta, Wikidata can be discontinued quietly, just         like Google did with the defunct Freebase which was CC-BY-SA         before they bought the company that was running it, and after         they imported it under CC0 in Wikidata as a new attempt to         gather a larger community of free curators. And when it will         have performed license laundering of all Wikimedia projects         works with shady mass extract and import, Wikimedia can         disappear as well. Of course big companies benefits more of this         possibilities than actors with smaller financial support and no         hegemonic position.     Thereby we are helping more people get access to knowledge from more     places than just the few big ones.         No, with CC0 you are certainly helping big companies to         reinforce their position in which they can distribute         information manipulated as they wish, without consideration for         traceability and equity considerations. Allowing contributors to         also use copyleft licenses would be far more effective to         /collect and use different forms of free, trusted knowledge/         that /focus efforts on the knowledge and communities that have         been left out by structures of power and privilege/, as stated         in /Our strategic direction: Service and Equity/.     CC-0 is becoming more and more common.         Just like economic inequality         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/economic_inequality>. But that is         not what we are aiming to foster in the Wikimedia movement. Many organisations are releasing their data under CC-0 and are happy     with the experience. Among them are the European Union, Europeana,     the National Library of Sweden and the Metropolitan Museum of Modern     Arts.         Good for them. But they are not the Wikimedia community, they         have their own goals and plan to be sustainable that does not         necessarily meet what our community can follow. Different         contexts require different means. States and their institutions         can count on tax revenue, and if taxpayers ends up in public         domain works, that's great and seems fair. States are rarely         threatened by companies, they have legal lever to pressure that         kind of entity, although conflict of interest and lobbying can         of course mitigate this statement.         Importing that kind of data with proper attribution and license         is fine, be it CC0 or any other free license. But that's not an         argument in favour of enforcing on benevolent a systematic         withdraw of all their rights as single option to contribute.  All this being said we do encourage all re-users of our data to give     attribution to Wikidata because we believe it is in the interest of     all parties involved.         That's it, zero legal hope of equity.     And our experience shows that many of our re-users do give credit to     Wikidata even if they are not forced to.         Experience also show that some prominent actors like Google         won't credit the Wikimedia community anymore when generating         directly answer based on, inter alia, information coming from         Wikidata, which is itself performing license laundering of         Wikipedia data.     Are there no downsides to this? No, of course not. Some people chose     not to participate, some data can't be imported and some re-users do     not attribute us. But the benefits I have seen over the years for     Wikidata and the larger open knowledge ecosystem far outweigh them.         This should at least backed with some solid statistics that it         had a positive impact in term of audience and contribution in         Wikimedia project as a whole. Maybe the introduction of Wikidata         did have a positive effect on the evolution of total number of         contributors, or maybe so far it has no significant correlative         effect, or maybe it is correlative with a decrease of the total         number of active contributors. Some plots would be interesting         here. Mere personal feelings of benefits and hindrances means         nothing here, mine included of course.         Plus, there is not even the beginning of an attempt to A/B test         with a second Wikibase instant that allow users to select which         licenses its contributions are released under, so there is no         possible way to state anything backed on relevant comparison.         The fact that they are some people satisfied with the current         state of things doesn't mean they would not be even more         satisfied with a more equitable solution that allows         contributors to chose a free license set for their publications.         All the more this is all about the sustainability and fostering         of our community and reaching its goals, not immediate feeling         of satisfaction for some people.       *         [1] Wikipedia Signpost 2015, 2nd december <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed>       *         [2] according to the next statement of Lydia     Once again, I recall this is not a manifesto against Wikidata. The     motivation behind this message is a hope that one day one might     participate in Wikidata with the same respect for equity and     traceability that is granted in other Wikimedia projects.     Kun multe da vikiamo,     mathieu _______________________________________________ Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l