On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:37 AM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 December 2015 at 12:27, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: >
> > It's surely not beyond human skill to devise a licence for Wikidata that > > requires re-users to include the three words above on their website, > while > > placing no other duties or restrictions on them. > > You appear to be suggesting a homebrew license +1 Requiring that reusers credit the *web site* would be new in the Wikimedia world, and I don't see the advantage. Certainly, serious reusers who wish to establish credibility should be transparent about the source of their data; but it's not our proper role to compel them to do so. Attribution requirements in CC licenses are about crediting the *copyright holders*. Andreas, I realize this has been much discussed in this thread, but I don't think I've seen this angle addressed directly: In order for any copyright license to apply, somebody has to hold the copyright. Who do you imagine has a legitimate claim to copyright over the emergent database that grows as multiple individuals and automated processes add individual, non-copyrightable claims/statements/facts? -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
