The NC license clause is problematic in a number of jurisdictions. For
example, at least in Germany, as I remember from my law classes, it also
would definitively include not-for-profits, NGOs, and even say bloggers,
with or without ads on their sites. One must always be careful in the
choice of a license in order to avoid unintended consequences.
Just food for thought
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 20:51 John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My reference was to in-place discussions at WMDE, not the open meetings
> with Markus. Each week we had an open demo where Markus usually attended.
> As I remember the May-discussion, it was just a discussion in the office,
> there was a reference to an earlier meeting. It is although easy to mix up
> old memories, so what happen first and what happen next should not be taken
> to be facts. If Markus also says the same it is although a reasonable
> chance we have got it right.
> As to the questions about archives on open discussions with the community.
> This was in April-May 2012. There was no community, there were only
> concerned individuals. The community started to emerge in August with the
> first attempts to go public. On Wikidata_talk:Introduction there are some
> posts from 15. August 2012, while first post on the subject page is from
> 30. October. The stuff from before October comes from a copy-paste from
> Meta. Note that Denny writes "The data in Wikidata is published under a
> free license, allowing the reuse of the data in many different scenarios."
> but Whittylama changes this to "The data in Wikidata is published under [
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ a free license],
> the reuse of the data in many different scenarios.", and at that point
> there were a community on an open site and had been for a week. When
> Whittylama did his post it was the 4504th post on the site, so it was
> hardly the first! The license was initially a CC-SA. I'm not quite sure
> when it was changed to CC0 in the footer, but it seems to have happen
> before 31 October 2012, at 19:09. First post on Q1 is from 29. October
> 2012, this is one of several items updated this evening.
> It is quite enlightening to start at oldid=1  and stepping forward. You
> will find that our present incarnation went live 25. October 2012. So much
> for the "birthday". To ask for archived community discussions before 25th
> October does not make sense, there were no site, and the only people
> involved were mostly devs posting at Meta. Note for example that the page
> Wikidata:Introduction is from Meta.
>  https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Introduction
>  https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1&oldid=103
>  https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?oldid=1
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Markus Krötzsch <
> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
> > Dear Mathieu,
> > Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first chosen
> > (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims here --
> > discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this, and I agree with
> > Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.
> > Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his earlier
> > message (quote included below this email for reference): it was not
> > decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a discussion among several
> > people who had worked with open data for some time before Wikidata was
> > born. I have personally supported this choice and still do. I have never
> > received any money directly or indirectly from Google, though -- full
> > disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for supervising in Summer of Code
> > projects.
> > At no time did Google or any other company take part in our discussions
> > the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From what I can see on
> > their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds of different license
> > terms in the data they display. Also, I can tell you that we would have
> > reacted in a very allergic way to such attempts, so if any company had
> > approached us, this would quite likely have backfired. But, believe it or
> > not, when we started it was all but clear that this would become a
> > project at all, and no major company even cared to lobby us. It was still
> > mostly a few hackers getting together in varying locations in Berlin.
> > was a lot of fun, optimism, and excitement in this early phase of
> > (well, I guess we are still in this phase).
> > So please do not start emails with made-up stories around past events
> > you have not even been close to (calling something "research" is no
> > substitute for methodology and rigour). Putting unsourced personal
> > against community members before all other arguments is a reckless way of
> > maximising effect, and such rhetoric can damage our movement beyond this
> > thread or topic. Our main strength is not our content but our community,
> > and I am glad to see that many have already responded to you in such a
> > measured and polite way.
> > Peace,
> > Markus
> > On 30.11.2017 09:55, John Erling Blad wrote:
> > > Licensing was discussed in the start of the project, as in start of
> > > developing code for the project, and as I recall it the arguments for
> > > CC0 was valid and sound. That was long before Danny started working for
> > > Google.
> > >
> > > As I recall it was mention during first week of the project (first week
> > > of april), and the duscussion reemerged during first week of
> > > development. That must have been week 4 or 5 (first week of may), as
> > > delivery of the laptoppen was delayed. I was against CC0 as I expected
> > > problems with reuse og external data. The arguments for CC0 convinced
> > >
> > > And yes, Denny argued for CC0 AS did Daniel and I believe Jeroen and
> > > Jens did too.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikidata mailing list
> > wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com