Scott,

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
Denny

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,[1] while first post on the subject page is from
> 30. October. The stuff from before October comes from a copy-paste from
> Meta.[3] 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],
> allowing
> the reuse of the data in many different scenarios.",[4] 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.[8] I'm not quite sure
> when it was changed to CC0 in the footer,[9] but it seems to have happen
> before 31 October 2012, at 19:09. First post on Q1 is from 29. October
> 2012,[5] this is one of several items updated this evening.
>
> It is quite enlightening to start at oldid=1 [6] 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.[7]
>
> [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Introduction
> [2]
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction&oldid=2677
> [3]
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Introduction&diff=133569705&oldid=128154617
> [4]
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Introduction&diff=next&oldid=4504
> [5] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1&oldid=103
> [6] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?oldid=1
> [7]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata/Introduction&oldid=4030743
> [8]
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20121027015501/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page
> [9]
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20121102074347/http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page
>
> 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 --
> the
> > 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
> Denny's
> > 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
> in
> > 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
> relevant
> > 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.
> There
> > was a lot of fun, optimism, and excitement in this early phase of
> Wikidata
> > (well, I guess we are still in this phase).
> >
> > So please do not start emails with made-up stories around past events
> that
> > you have not even been close to (calling something "research" is no
> > substitute for methodology and rigour). Putting unsourced personal
> attacks
> > 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
> the
> > > delivery of the laptoppen was delayed. I was against CC0 as I expected
> > > problems with reuse og external data. The arguments for CC0 convinced
> me.
> > >
> > > 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
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to