In addition to my previous critique about the unsourced claims here, I also have made a comment on the talk page regarding my own position in this matter, which I replicate here for completeness:
""" Current legislations do not support the licensing of individual facts, only of databases as a whole, and only in some countries. What you are asking for is Wikidata to lobby for the introduction of new notions of "copyright" which do not exist today. Yes, you could use these laws to enforce attribution and share-alike, but companies will also use the same laws to enforce conditions on using "their" facts. This is not desirable. Plain data is free from such legal control, and this is the position of the EFF (see this recent article [1]) and also of many people in our community. Concepts like the infamous illegal prime [2] express the fundamental opposition that free culture proponents have against putting terms and conditions on data items. By suggesting that laws should be more restrictive, the article is arguing against some of the basic freedoms we are supporting with our movement. --Markus Krötzsch 22:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC) """
In particular, it should be noted that the Electronic Frontier Foundation is fully supporting the approach of Wikidata: "raw data itself is not copyrightable, but there are still good reasons to explicitly assert its public domain status" [1].
Markus
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/open-government-data-act-would-uh-open...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime
On 16.06.2016 17:45, nicolasmaia@tutanota.com wrote:
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-06-15/Op-ed
Nicolas Maia
Enviado seguramente pelo Tutanota. Torne sua caixa de correio criptografada hoje mesmo! https://tutanota.com
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata