This argument is that copyright is irrelevant to Wikidata, and Wiktionary. If this were acceptable - in law or to Wikidata - then they would simply import any commercial dictionaries they wish.
It is not. Amgine On 2017-11-30 10:06, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Good (IMHO) summary by Yair Rand on CC-0 vs. CC-BY-SA for Wiktionary. > > Federico > > -------- Messaggio inoltrato -------- > Oggetto: Re: [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its > considerations on Wikidata and CC-0 > Data: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:05:54 -0500 > Mittente: Yair Rand <[email protected]> > Rispondi-a: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. > <[email protected]> > A: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. > <[email protected]> > > > > Wikidata is not replacing Wiktionary. Wikidata did not replace > Wikipedia, and force all articles to be under CC-0. Structured data > for Commons doesn't replace all Commons media with CC-0-licensed > content. They didn't even set up parallel projects to hold CC-0 > articles or media. There is no reason to believe that structured data > for Wiktionary would do any of these things. Wikidata is for holding > structured data, and only structured data. > > The fact that France is in Europe is not, independently, > copyrightable. The fact that > File:Vanessa_indica-Silent_Valley-2016-08-14-002.jpg is a picture of a > butterfly is not copyrightable. The facts that "balloons" is the > plural of "balloon", and that "feliĉiĝi" is an intransitive verb in > Esperanto, are not copyrightable. Even if they were copyrightable, > copyrighting them independently would harm their potential reuse, as > elements of a database, as has been previously explained. > > A Wikipedia article is copyrightable. Licensing it under CC-BY-SA does > not particularly harm its reuse, and makes it so that reuse can happen > with attribution. Wikidata includes links to Wikipedia articles, and > while the links are under CC-0, the linked content is under CC-BY-SA. > Similarly for Commons content. Wikipedia articles and Commons Media > are not structured data, and as such, they do not belong in Wikidata. > > Elements of prose in Wiktionary, such as definitions, appendices, > extensive usage notes and notes on grammar and whatnot, are > copyrightable. Similar to Wikipedia articles, licensing them under > CC-BY-SA would not particularly harm their reuse, as attribution is > completely feasible. They are also not structured data, and can not be > made into structured data. Wikidata will not be laundering this data > to CC-0, nor will it be setting up a parallel project to duplicate the > efforts under a license which is not appropriate for the type of content. > > Attempting to license the database's contents under CC-BY-SA would not > ensure attribution, and would harm reuse. I fail to see any potential > benefits to using the more restrictive license. Attribution will be > required where it is possible (in Wiktionary proper), and content will > be as reusable as possible in areas where requiring attribution isn't > feasible (in Wikidata). There's no real conflict here. > > -- Yair Rand > > 2017-11-29 16:45 GMT-05:00 Mathieu Stumpf Guntz > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > 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)[1] > > <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[2] > > <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. > * > > [1] Wikipedia Signpost 2015, 2nd december > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed> > > > > * > > [2] 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Wiktionary-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l _______________________________________________ Wiktionary-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
