Oh, and by the way, ODbL was considered as a potential license, but I recall that that license could have been incompatible for reuse with CC BY-SA 3.0. It was actually a point of discussion with the Italian OpenStreetMap community back in 2013, when I first presented at the OSM-IT meeting the possibility of a collaboration between WD and OSM.
L. Il 30 nov 2017 08:57, "Luca Martinelli" <martinellil...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > I basically stopped reading this email after the first attack to Denny. > > I was there since the beginning, and I do recall the *extensive* > discussion about what license to use. CC0 was chosen, among other things, > because of the moronic EU rule about database rights, that CC 3.0 licenses > didn't allow us to counter - please remember that 4.0 were still under > discussion, and we couldn't afford the luxury of waiting for 4.0 to come > out before publishing Wikidata. > > And possibly next time provide a TL;DR version of your email at the top. > > Cheers, > > L. > > > Il 29 nov 2017 22:46, "Mathieu Stumpf Guntz" < > psychosl...@culture-libre.org> ha scritto: > >> Saluton ĉiuj, >> >> I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta Tremendous >> Wiktionary User Group talk page >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#An_answer_to_Lydia_general_thinking_about_Wikidata_and_CC-0>, >> because I'm interested to have a wider feedback of the community on this >> point. Whether you think that my view is completely misguided or that I >> might have a few relevant points, I'm extremely interested to know it, so >> please be bold. >> >> Before you consider digging further in this reading, keep in mind that I >> stay convinced that Wikidata is a wonderful project and I wish it a bright >> future full of even more amazing things than what it already brung so far. >> My sole concern is really a license issue. >> >> Bellow is a copy/paste of the above linked message: >> >> Thank you Lydia Pintscher >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29> for >> taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer >> <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29/CC-0> >> miss too many important points to solve all concerns which have been raised. >> >> Notably, there is still no beginning of hint in it about where the >> decision of using CC0 exclusively for Wikidata came from. But as this >> inquiry on the topic >> <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/fr:Recherche:La_licence_CC-0_de_Wikidata,_origine_du_choix,_enjeux,_et_prospections_sur_les_aspects_de_gouvernance_communautaire_et_d%E2%80%99%C3%A9quit%C3%A9_contributive> >> advance, an answer is emerging from it. It seems that Wikidata choice >> toward CC0 was heavily influenced by Denny Vrandečić, who – to make it >> short – is now working in the Google Knowledge Graph team. Also it worth >> noting that Google funded a quarter of the initial development work. >> Another quarter came from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, >> established by Intel co-founder. And half the money came from Microsoft >> co-founder Paul Allen's Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)[1] >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-1>. >> To state it shortly in a conspirational fashion, Wikidata is the puppet >> trojan horse of big tech hegemonic companies into the realm of Wikimedia. >> For a less tragic, more argumentative version, please see the research >> project (work in progress, only chapter 1 is in good enough shape, and it's >> only available in French so far). Some proofs that this claim is completely >> wrong are welcome, as it would be great that in fact that was the community >> that was the driving force behind this single license choice and that it is >> the best choice for its future, not the future of giant tech companies. >> This would be a great contribution to bring such a happy light on this >> subject, so we can all let this issue alone and go back contributing in >> more interesting topics. >> >> Now let's examine the thoughts proposed by Lydia. >> Wikidata is here to give more people more access to more knowledge. So >> far, it makes it matches Wikimedia movement stated goal. This means we >> want our data to be used as widely as possible. Sure, as long as it >> rhymes with equity. As in *Our strategic direction: Service and **Equity* >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity>. >> Just like we want freedom for everybody as widely as possible. That is, >> starting where it confirms each others freedom. Because under this level, >> freedom of one is murder and slavery of others. CC-0 is one step towards >> that. That's a thesis, you can propose to defend it but no one have to >> agree without some convincing proof. Data is different from many other >> things we produce in Wikimedia in that it is aggregated, combined, >> mashed-up, filtered, and so on much more extensively. No it's not. From >> a data processing point of view, everything is data. Whether it's stored in >> a wikisyntax, in a relational database or engraved in stone only have a >> commodity side effect. Whether it's a random stream of bit generated by a >> dumb chipset or some encoded prose of Shakespeare make no difference. So >> from this point of view, no, what Wikidata store is not different from what >> is produced anywhere else in Wikimedia projects. Sure, the way it's >> structured does extremely ease many things. But this is not because it's >> data, when elsewhere there would be no data. It's because it enforce data >> to be stored in a way that ease aggregation, combination, mashing-up, >> filtering and so on. Our data lives from being able to write queries >> over millions of statements, putting it into a mobile app, visualizing >> parts of it on a map and much more. Sure. It also lives from being >> curated from millions[2] >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-2> >> of benevolent contributors, or it would be just a useless pile of random >> bytes. This means, if we require attribution, in a huge number of cases >> attribution would need to go back to potentially millions of editors and >> sources (even if that data is not visible in the end result but only helped >> to get the result). No, it doesn't mean that. First let's recall a few >> basics as it seems the whole answer makes confusion between attribution and >> distribution of contributions under the same license as the original. >> Attribution is crucial for traceability and so for reliable and trusted >> knowledge that we are targeting within the Wikimedia movement. The "same >> license" is the sole legal guaranty of equity contributors have. That's it, >> trusted knowledge and equity are requirements for the Wikimedia movement >> goals. That means withdrawing this requirements is withdrawing this goals. >> Now, >> what would be the additional cost of storing sources in Wikidata? Well, >> zero cost. Actually, it's already here as the "reference" attribute is part >> of the Wikibase item structure. So attribution is not a problem, you don't >> have to put it in front of your derived work, just look at a Wikipedia >> article: until you go to history, you have zero attribution visible, and >> it's ok. It's also have probably zero or negligible computing cost, as it >> doesn't have to be included in all computations, it just need to be >> retrievable on demand. What would be the additional cost of storing >> licenses for each item based on its source? Well, adding a license >> attribute might help, but actually if your reference is a work item, I >> guess it might comes with a "license" statement, so zero additional cost. >> Now for letting user specify under which free licenses they publish their >> work, that would just require an additional attribute, a ridiculous weight >> when balanced with equity concerns it resolves. Could that prevent some >> uses for some actors? Yes, that's actually the point, preventing abuse of >> those who doesn't want to act equitably. For all other actors a "distribute >> under same condition" is fine. This is potentially computationally hard >> to do and and depending on where the data is used very inconvenient (think >> of a map with hundreds of data points in a mobile app). OpenStreetMap >> which use ODbL, a copyleft attributive license, do exactly that too, >> doesn't it? By the way, allowing a license by item would enable to include >> OpenStreetMap data in WikiData, which is currently impossible due to the >> CC0 single license policy of the project. Too bad, it could be so useful to >> have this data accessible for Wikimedia projects, but who cares? This is >> a burden on our re-users that I do not want to impose on them. Wait, >> which re-users? Surely one might expect that Wikidata would care first of >> re-users which are in the phase with Wikimedia goal, so surely needs of >> Wikimedia community in particular and Free/Libre Culture in general should >> be considered. Do this re-users would be penalized by a copyleft license? >> Surely no, or they wouldn't use it extensively as they do. So who are this >> re-users for who it's thought preferable, without consulting the community, >> to not annoy with questions of equity and traceability? It would make it >> significantly harder to re-use our data and be in direct conflict with our >> goal of spreading knowledge. No, technically it would be just as easy as >> punching a button on a computer to do that rather than this. What is in >> direct conflict with our clearly stated goals emerging from the 2017 >> community consultation is going against equity and traceability. You >> propose to discard both to satisfy exogenous demands which should have next >> to no weight in decision impacting so deeply the future of our community. >> Whether >> data can be protected in this way at all or not depends on the jurisdiction >> we are talking about. See this Wikilegal on on database rights >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights> for more >> details. It says basically that it's applicable in United States and >> Europe on different legal bases and extents. And for the rest of the world, >> it doesn't say it doesn't say nothing can apply, it states nothing. So >> even if we would have decided to require attribution it would only be >> enforceable in some jurisdictions. What kind of logic is that? Maybe it >> might not be applicable in some country, so let's withdraw the few rights >> we have. Ambiguity, when it comes to legal matters, also unfortunately >> often means that people refrain from what they want to to for fear of legal >> repercussions. This is directly in conflict with our goal of spreading >> knowledge. Economic inequality, social inequity and legal imbalance >> might also refrain people from doing what they want, as they fear practical >> repercussions. CC0 strengthen this discrimination factors by enforcing >> people to withdraw the few rights they have to weight against the growing >> asymmetry that social structures are concomitantly building. So CC0 as >> unique license choice is in direct conflict with our goal of *equitably* >> spreading knowledge. Also it seems like this statement suggest that >> releasing our contributions only under CC0 is the sole solution to diminish >> legal doubts. Actually any well written license would do an equal job >> regarding this point, including many copyleft licenses out there. So while >> associate a clear license to each data item might indeed diminish legal >> uncertainty, it's not an argument at all for enforcing CC0 as sole license >> available to contributors. Moreover, just putting a license side by side >> with a work does not ensure that the person who made the association was >> legally allowed to do so. To have a better confidence in the legitimacy of >> a statement that a work is covered by a certain license, there is once >> again a traceability requirement. For example, Wikidata currently include >> many items which were imported from misc. Wikipedia versions, and claim >> that the derived work obtained – a set of items and statements – is under >> CC0. That is a hugely doubtful statement and it alarmingly looks like license >> laundering <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/license_laundering>. This is >> true for Wikipedia, but it's also true for any source on which a large >> scale extraction and import are operated, whether through bots or crowd >> sourcing. So the Wikidata project is currently extremely misplaced to >> give lessons on legal ambiguity, as it heavily plays with legal blur and >> the hope that its shady practises won't fall under too much scrutiny. >> Licenses >> that require attribution are often used as a way to try to make it harder >> for big companies to profit from openly available resources. No there >> are not. They are used as *a way to try to make it harder for big >> companies to profit from openly available resources* *in inequitable >> manners*. That's completely different. Copyleft licenses give the same >> rights to big companies and individuals in a manner that lower >> socio-economic inequalities which disproportionally advantage the former. The >> thing is there seems to be no indication of this working. Because it's >> not trying to enforce what you pretend, so of course it's not working for >> this goal. But for the goal that copyleft licenses aims at, there are clear >> evidences that yes it works. Big companies have the legal and >> engineering resources to handle both the legal minefield and the technical >> hurdles easily. There is no pitfall in copyleft licenses. Using war >> material analogy is disrespectful. That's true that copyleft licenses might >> come with some constraints that non-copyleft free licenses don't have, but >> that the price for fostering equity. And it's a low price, that even >> individuals can manage, it might require a very little extra time on legal >> considerations, but on the other hand using the free work is an immensely >> vast gain that worth it. In Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for >> your next library <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html> is >> stated *proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; >> free software developers need to make advantages for each other*. This >> might be generalised as *big companies have the advantage of money; >> free/libre culture contributors need to make advantages for each other*. >> So at odd with what pretend this fallacious claims against copyleft >> licenses, they are not a "minefield and the technical hurdles" that only >> big companies can handle. All the more, let's recall who financed the >> initial development of Wikidata: only actors which are related to big >> companies. Who it is really hurting is the smaller start-up, institution >> or hacker who can not deal with it. If this statement is about copyleft >> licenses, then this is just plainly false. Smaller actors have more to gain >> in preserving mutual benefit of the common ecosystem that a copyleft >> license fosters. With Wikidata we are making structured data about the >> world available for everyone. And that's great. But that doesn't require >> CC0 as sole license to be achieved. We are leveling the playing field to >> give those who currently don’t have access to the knowledge graphs of the >> big companies a chance to build something amazing. And that's great. But >> that doesn't require CC0 as sole license. Actually CC0 makes it a less >> sustainable project on this point, as it allows unfair actors to take it >> all, add some interesting added value that our community can not afford, >> reach/reinforce an hegemonic position in the ecosystem with their own >> closed solution. And, ta ta, Wikidata can be discontinued quietly, just >> like Google did with the defunct Freebase which was CC-BY-SA before they >> bought the company that was running it, and after they imported it under >> CC0 in Wikidata as a new attempt to gather a larger community of free >> curators. And when it will have performed license laundering of all >> Wikimedia projects works with shady mass extract and import, Wikimedia can >> disappear as well. Of course big companies benefits more of this >> possibilities than actors with smaller financial support and no hegemonic >> position. Thereby we are helping more people get access to knowledge >> from more places than just the few big ones. No, with CC0 you are >> certainly helping big companies to reinforce their position in which they >> can distribute information manipulated as they wish, without consideration >> for traceability and equity considerations. Allowing contributors to also >> use copyleft licenses would be far more effective to *collect and use >> different forms of free, trusted knowledge* that *focus efforts on the >> knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power >> and privilege*, as stated in *Our strategic direction: Service and >> Equity*. CC-0 is becoming more and more common. Just like economic >> inequality <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/economic_inequality>. But that >> is not what we are aiming to foster in the Wikimedia movement. Many >> organisations are releasing their data under CC-0 and are happy with the >> experience. Among them are the European Union, Europeana, the National >> Library of Sweden and the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Arts. Good for >> them. But they are not the Wikimedia community, they have their own goals >> and plan to be sustainable that does not necessarily meet what our >> community can follow. Different contexts require different means. States >> and their institutions can count on tax revenue, and if taxpayers ends up >> in public domain works, that's great and seems fair. States are rarely >> threatened by companies, they have legal lever to pressure that kind of >> entity, although conflict of interest and lobbying can of course mitigate >> this statement. Importing that kind of data with proper attribution and >> license is fine, be it CC0 or any other free license. But that's not an >> argument in favour of enforcing on benevolent a systematic withdraw of all >> their rights as single option to contribute. All this being said we do >> encourage all re-users of our data to give attribution to Wikidata because >> we believe it is in the interest of all parties involved. That's it, >> zero legal hope of equity. And our experience shows that many of our >> re-users do give credit to Wikidata even if they are not forced to. >> Experience >> also show that some prominent actors like Google won't credit the Wikimedia >> community anymore when generating directly answer based on, inter alia, >> information coming from Wikidata, which is itself performing license >> laundering of Wikipedia data. Are there no downsides to this? No, of >> course not. Some people chose not to participate, some data can't be >> imported and some re-users do not attribute us. But the benefits I have >> seen over the years for Wikidata and the larger open knowledge ecosystem >> far outweigh them. This should at least backed with some solid >> statistics that it had a positive impact in term of audience and >> contribution in Wikimedia project as a whole. Maybe the introduction of >> Wikidata did have a positive effect on the evolution of total number of >> contributors, or maybe so far it has no significant correlative effect, or >> maybe it is correlative with a decrease of the total number of active >> contributors. Some plots would be interesting here. Mere personal feelings >> of benefits and hindrances means nothing here, mine included of course. Plus, >> there is not even the beginning of an attempt to A/B test with a second >> Wikibase instant that allow users to select which licenses its >> contributions are released under, so there is no possible way to state >> anything backed on relevant comparison. The fact that they are some people >> satisfied with the current state of things doesn't mean they would not be >> even more satisfied with a more equitable solution that allows contributors >> to chose a free license set for their publications. All the more this is >> all about the sustainability and fostering of our community and reaching >> its goals, not immediate feeling of satisfaction for some people. >> >> - >> >> [1] Wikipedia Signpost 2015, 2nd december >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed> >> >> >> - >> >> [2] according to the next statement of Lydia >> >> Once again, I recall this is not a manifesto against Wikidata. The >> motivation behind this message is a hope that one day one might participate >> in Wikidata with the same respect for equity and traceability that is >> granted in other Wikimedia projects. >> >> Kun multe da vikiamo, >> mathieu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >>
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
