Le lun. 18 janv. 2016 à 3:17, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andre...@gmail.com>
a écrit :
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:59 AM, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com>
Nor am I concerned that our information might be used by people who
principles. We ask just the same of our contributors--that the
they contribute may be used for ''any'' purpose.
My concern is when our CC-BY-SA (or CC0) user-generated information
shared-alike AND it is a cost for the movement (ie a cost in terms of
bandwidth and electricity).
If Google harvests our information, using massively the API we
they just make it a silo for them to use (for the Knowledge Graph, for
example) and this hurts us, I'm wondering if
we can do something about it. There are only very few players who can
all our information and use it as an internal asset, enriching it and
I don't think in binary, so for me there is no contradiction to have a
CC-BY-SA content, but some caveat for big, big, big players.
I'm not saying (nobody is) that we have to shift to a NC license. Just
that I don't want our movement to be hurt by multi-billion dollars
companies: I'm not an expert of the commons (I bet many people in
are) so I'm genuinely interested in hearing opinions about this. Is
thing as "tragedy of the digital commons"? Can Google (or Amazon or
Facebook) exploits us?
Now please tell me (gently, :-D) where is my mistake in this line of
CC-BY-SA allows everyone (including big companies) to modify (for
instance, to enrich)
and not share-alike AS LONG AS their extended work is kept private.
Facebook pages and Google infoboxes based on CC-BY-SA content ought to
the CC-BY-SA license too, because they are distributed to an audience
wider than the
changes' copyright owners (usually the companies themselves).
CC0 obviously permits everything, including not sharing back at all.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org