Haha, thank you for the funny form of your message Luca.
Now on topic, I'm not convinced that the current situation resolve the
problem, it just pretend that nothing exist out of the simple cases.
For example, currently we can not use data from OSM due to this license
restriction. May the per item license attribute is not the best
approach, other suggestions are welcome. But at least it's a proposal
that would resolve this issue, rather was divest the Wikimedia community
from valuable free resource like OSM data for the convenience of
Wikidata reusers which are exogenes of the Wikimedia movement. Adding a
license attribute is not technically complicated. The only complexity it
would make visible is the legal complexity. And providing tool to filter
by license or compatible license would be just as easy as adding any
other criterion in a request.
Maybe an other approach might be to have a separated Wikibase instance
for specific projects (like OSM) or licenses and make them accessible
through an other magic word in Mediawiki instances of the foundation.
But then it would add technical difficulties in possibility of remix
even when distinct licenses are compatibles, although Scribunto modules
might help for most trivial cases. However all in all that would be
probably a far more complex solution than the previous one.
Le 30/11/2017 à 13:07, Luca Martinelli a écrit :
Il 30 nov 2017 13:02, "mathieu stumpf guntz"
Also it doesn't completely dismiss the idea of a per item license
tracking system, does it?
In Italy, a country notorious for its simple and easily understandable
set of rules, we'd compare such proposal to the institution of the
strangely infamous "Office for Complication of Simple Affairs".
That sums up perfectly what I think of this idea, and it's also as
diplomatic as I can get on the issue.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org