Yes, that makes sense. Mike
2012/4/3 Denny Vrandečić <[email protected]>: > 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 <[email protected]> >> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 16:43, Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou <[email protected]> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
