Scott, The NC license clause is problematic in a number of jurisdictions. For example, at least in Germany, as I remember from my law classes, it also would definitively include not-for-profits, NGOs, and even say bloggers, with or without ads on their sites. One must always be careful in the choice of a license in order to avoid unintended consequences.
Just food for thought Denny On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 20:51 John Erling Blad <[email protected]> wrote: > My reference was to in-place discussions at WMDE, not the open meetings > with Markus. Each week we had an open demo where Markus usually attended. > As I remember the May-discussion, it was just a discussion in the office, > there was a reference to an earlier meeting. It is although easy to mix up > old memories, so what happen first and what happen next should not be taken > to be facts. If Markus also says the same it is although a reasonable > chance we have got it right. > > As to the questions about archives on open discussions with the community. > This was in April-May 2012. There was no community, there were only > concerned individuals. The community started to emerge in August with the > first attempts to go public. On Wikidata_talk:Introduction there are some > posts from 15. August 2012,[1] while first post on the subject page is from > 30. October. The stuff from before October comes from a copy-paste from > Meta.[3] Note that Denny writes "The data in Wikidata is published under a > free license, allowing the reuse of the data in many different scenarios." > but Whittylama changes this to "The data in Wikidata is published under [ > http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ a free license], > allowing > the reuse of the data in many different scenarios.",[4] and at that point > there were a community on an open site and had been for a week. When > Whittylama did his post it was the 4504th post on the site, so it was > hardly the first! The license was initially a CC-SA.[8] I'm not quite sure > when it was changed to CC0 in the footer,[9] but it seems to have happen > before 31 October 2012, at 19:09. First post on Q1 is from 29. October > 2012,[5] this is one of several items updated this evening. > > It is quite enlightening to start at oldid=1 [6] and stepping forward. You > will find that our present incarnation went live 25. October 2012. So much > for the "birthday". To ask for archived community discussions before 25th > October does not make sense, there were no site, and the only people > involved were mostly devs posting at Meta. Note for example that the page > Wikidata:Introduction is from Meta.[7] > > [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Introduction > [2] > https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction&oldid=2677 > [3] > > https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Introduction&diff=133569705&oldid=128154617 > [4] > > https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction&diff=next&oldid=4504 > [5] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1&oldid=103 > [6] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 > [7] > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata/Introduction&oldid=4030743 > [8] > > https://web.archive.org/web/20121027015501/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page > [9] > > https://web.archive.org/web/20121102074347/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Markus Krötzsch < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Mathieu, > > > > Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first chosen > > (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims here -- > the > > discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this, and I agree with > > Lydia that no shouting is necessary here. > > > > Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his earlier > > message (quote included below this email for reference): it was not > Denny's > > decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a discussion among several > > people who had worked with open data for some time before Wikidata was > > born. I have personally supported this choice and still do. I have never > > received any money directly or indirectly from Google, though -- full > > disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for supervising in Summer of Code > > projects. > > > > At no time did Google or any other company take part in our discussions > in > > the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From what I can see on > > their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds of different license > > terms in the data they display. Also, I can tell you that we would have > > reacted in a very allergic way to such attempts, so if any company had > > approached us, this would quite likely have backfired. But, believe it or > > not, when we started it was all but clear that this would become a > relevant > > project at all, and no major company even cared to lobby us. It was still > > mostly a few hackers getting together in varying locations in Berlin. > There > > was a lot of fun, optimism, and excitement in this early phase of > Wikidata > > (well, I guess we are still in this phase). > > > > So please do not start emails with made-up stories around past events > that > > you have not even been close to (calling something "research" is no > > substitute for methodology and rigour). Putting unsourced personal > attacks > > against community members before all other arguments is a reckless way of > > maximising effect, and such rhetoric can damage our movement beyond this > > thread or topic. Our main strength is not our content but our community, > > and I am glad to see that many have already responded to you in such a > > measured and polite way. > > > > Peace, > > > > Markus > > > > > > On 30.11.2017 09:55, John Erling Blad wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikidata mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
