On 28/11/12 17:58, Luca Martinelli wrote: > I share Denny's worries. > > If we adopt ODBL, all WMF projects *will have to* add a note about > structured data taken from Wikidata (like "data are released in ODBL" > or similar), or they should be bi-licensed (CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported + > ODBL what.ever). > > If we keep licensing Wikidata with a CC0 (which is, in fact, a PD-like > license), that allows Wikipedia to re-use data with CC-BY-SA 3.0 > Unported without any problem. Then, when CC-BY-SA 4.0 will be > released, we can migrate ALL projects to the new license. > > I don't see any other possibilities - I do know something about > licensing and stuff, but I may be wrong.
Dual licensing under ODBL + CC-BY-SA? Or even ODBL + CC-BY-SA + GFDL, to keep the legacy license as well. You could also ODBL with an additional permission to relicense it under CC-BY-SA or GFDL when aggregated with another work (slightly different than a dual licensing, but pretty much the same). _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
