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. Cheers, Denny 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 > Wikidatafirstname.lastname@example.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 Wikidataemail@example.com https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l