Hi! I think this conversation is diverging from the question of the *service* we should offer to others to licensing of the content. Licensing does not say anything about the service one should offer for the content. Any service, any API, is more or less something one does extra on top of the licensing requirements. We could just offer dumps of data and this is it. But if we offer more, some specialized services, uptime and availability and so on, that does not have much with the licensing of the content. That discussion should thus be on some other layer. Investigating licensing will not give us much insight into the question if we should go into the business of offering data services or not.
Mitar On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Isaac David <isacdaa...@isacdaavid.info> > wrote: >> >> 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> wrote: >>> >>>> Nor am I concerned that our information might be used by people who >>>> oppose >>>> our >>>> principles. We ask just the same of our contributors--that the >>>> information >>>> they contribute may be used for ''any'' purpose. >>>> >>> >>> >>> My concern is when our CC-BY-SA (or CC0) user-generated information is not >>> 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 provide, >>> and >>> 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 take >>> all our information and use it as an internal asset, enriching it and NOT >>> sharing it. >>> >>> 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 this >>> list >>> are) so I'm genuinely interested in hearing opinions about this. Is such >>> 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 >>> thought. >>> >>> Aubrey >> >> >> 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. That >> means >> Facebook pages and Google infoboxes based on CC-BY-SA content ought to carry >> the CC-BY-SA license too, because they are distributed to an audience wider >> than the >> changes' copyright owners (usually the companies themselves). > > By this logic, and it is reasonable but debatable, if a Google search > infobox should be CC-BY-SA, then Wikidata items that contain all the > same infobox values from a Wikipedia article should also be CC-BY-SA. > > -- > John Vandenberg > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>