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 <xavier.combe...@gmail.com > 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 > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/ > 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 > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29> for > > taking the time to answer. Unfortunately this answer > > <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_%28WMDE%29/CC-0> > > 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 > > <https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/fr:Recherche:La_licence_ > 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) > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/ > 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*/ > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ > 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 > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary/ > 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 <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 > Equity/. > > > > 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. > > > > * > > > >  Wikipedia Signpost 2015, 2nd december > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_ > Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed> > > > > > > * > > > >  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: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > 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> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>