Sorry for the sprelling errojs, my post was written on a cellphone set to Norwegian.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:55 AM, John Erling Blad <[email protected]> wrote: > Please keep this civil and on topic! > > Licensing was discussed in the start of the project, as in start of > developing code for the project, and as I recall it the arguments for CC0 > was valid and sound. That was long before Danny started working for Google. > > As I recall it was mention during first week of the project (first week of > april), and the duscussion reemerged during first week of development. That > must have been week 4 or 5 (first week of may), as the delivery of the > laptoppen was delayed. I was against CC0 as I expected problems with reuse > og external data. The arguments for CC0 convinced me. > > And yes, Denny argued for CC0 AS did Daniel and I believe Jeroen and Jens > did too. > > Argument is pretty simple: Part A has some data A and claim license A. > Part B has some data B and claim license B. Both license A and license B > are sticky, this later data C that use an aggregation of A and B must > satisfy both license A and license B. That is not viable. > > Moving forward to a safe, non-sticky license seems to be the only viable > solution, and this leads to CC0. > > Feel free to discuss the merrit of our choice but do not use personal > attacs. Thank you. > > Den tor. 30. nov. 2017, 09.11 skrev Luca Martinelli < > [email protected]>: > >> 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" <[email protected]> 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" < >>> [email protected]> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
