On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Gergo Tisza <[email protected]> wrote:
> Trying to make our content less free for fear that someone might misuse it > is a shamefully wrong frame > of mind for and organization that's supposed to be a leader of the > open content movement, IMO. > Do you think there is something "shameful" about Wikipedia using the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License? And if that isn't shameful, why would it be shameful if Wikidata used the same licence? Attribution has a dual benefit: 1. It provides visibility for Wikimedia and the open content movement. 2. The public can see where the data comes from. What is shameful about that? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
