Hi Dan, we will dual-license the next DBpedia release under CC-BY-SA and GFDL.
We would even be willing go for a more liberal license (for instance CC-BY), I anybody with a legal background would assure us that we are allowed to do so under US and European law. Cheers, Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Dan Brickley Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Juni 2009 09:38 An: [email protected] Betreff: Wikipedia relicensed: consequences for DBpedia and downstream? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation [[ As per the licensing update vote result and subsequent Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution, any content on Wikimedia Foundation projects currently available under GFDL 1.2 with the possibility of upgrading to a later version will be made available additionally under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Unported. Specifically with regard to text, after this update, only dual-licensed content or CC-BY-SA-compatible content can be added to the projects, and GFDL-only submissions will no longer be accepted. In other words, CC-BY-SA will be the primary Wikimedia license for text, and GFDL will be retained as a secondary license. ]] According to http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Datasets#h18-18 DBpedia is available under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_Li cense Will it also be made available under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ? ("Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported") What do these distinctions mean in practice when we're dealing with mergable data rather than documents? "Share Alike If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license." ... seems rather strong (eg. for intranet triplestore use). Is anyone here not not a lawyer? cheers, Dan
