You can copyright an expression about facts, but you can't copyright the
facts. In some jurisdictions a collection of facts can be given a special
protection, but still the individual facts are not protected.

>>A single property licensing scheme would allow storage of data,
>>it might or might not allow reuse of the licensed data together with
>>other data. Remember that all entries in the servers might be part
>of an mashup with all other entries.

>That's a very interesting point. Does anyone know a clear extensive report
of what is legal or not regarding massive import of data >extracted from
some source?

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Xavier Combelle <
> wrote:

> Hi,
> Did not read your whole argument, but as a collection of brute facts, it
> is hard to see how the content of wikidata could
> be in something else than public domain.
> As a whole, the database could present a Sui generis database right
> ( , but
> individual contributors
> would not have rights in this scheme as they have in wikipedia use case.
> Xavier Combelle
> Le 29/11/2017 à 22:45, Mathieu Stumpf Guntz a écrit :
> > Saluton ĉiuj,
> >
> > I forward here the message I initially posted on the Meta Tremendous
> > Wiktionary User Group talk page
> > <
> Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#An_answer_to_Lydia_
> general_thinking_about_Wikidata_and_CC-0>,
> > 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
> > <
> CC-0_de_Wikidata,_origine_du_choix,_enjeux,_et_
> prospections_sur_les_aspects_de_gouvernance_communautaire_
> et_d%E2%80%99%C3%A9quit%C3%A9_contributive>
> > 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]
> > <
> Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-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*/
> >     <
> movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#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]
> >     <
> Tremendous_Wiktionary_User_Group#cite_note-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 them.
> >     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 <> 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
> >     <>. 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
> >     <> 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
> Equity/.
> >
> > CC-0 is becoming more and more common.
> >     Just like 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
> >     <
> Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed>
> >
> >
> >   *
> >
> >     [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,
> > mathieu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to