Le 30/11/2017 à 08:57, Luca Martinelli a écrit :
I basically stopped reading this email after the first attack to Denny.
That's sad to read, but I guess I must mostly blame my unfortunate formulations.

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.
I welcome any reference to this discussions.

And possibly next time provide a TL;DR version of your email at the top.
Ok, thank you for this suggestion, I'll do that.



Il 29 nov 2017 22:46, "Mathieu Stumpf Guntz" <psychosl...@culture-libre.org <mailto:psychosl...@culture-libre.org>> ha scritto:

    Saluton ĉiuj,

    I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta
    Tremendous Wiktionary User Group talk page
    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
    for taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer
    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
    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]
    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*/
        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]
        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
        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
    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


        [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,

    Wikidata mailing list
    wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org>

Wikidata mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to