Mike, all,

thank you very much for this input. So do I understand it correctly that
during development and testing, we can can go with CC-0, and later
relicense to whatever seems suitable, which is possible with CC-0?

To go now with a license that will prevent us from migrating later, either
CC-BY-SA 4.0 or ODbL, seems to be too early to decide now.


2012/4/3 Mike Linksvayer <m...@gondwanaland.com>

> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 16:43, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou <b.oo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I fully agree.
> > If CC4 comes before any decision is to be made with WikiData's licence it
> > would only be natural to use CC-BY-SA for data as well as for content. My
> > pleading for ODbL is as a temporary fix since right now, in countries
> such
> > as France, releasing data under CC-anything basically means CC0 on the
> data
> > without producers using it even knowing it (latest one yesterday here
> > data.visitprovence.com )
> 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_database_rights_addressed_in_CC_licenses.3F
> which explains some of this in a few more words.
> > I was only arguing in favor to pursue the common goods attitude behind
> the
> > copyleft choice that was made before for Wikipedia.
> Much appreciated. :)
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

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

Reply via email to