W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2009

AW: Wikipedia relicensed: consequences for DBpedia and downstream?

From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:58:31 +0200
To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@danbri.org>, <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f001c9ee58$3e162060$ba426120$@de>
Hi Dan,

we will dual-license the next DBpedia release under CC-BY-SA and GFDL.

We would even be willing go for a more liberal license (for instance CC-BY),
I anybody with a legal background would assure us that we are allowed to do
so under US and European law.

Cheers,

Chris


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-lod-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag
von Dan Brickley
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Juni 2009 09:38
An: public-lod@w3.org
Betreff: Wikipedia relicensed: consequences for DBpedia and downstream?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation
[[
As per the licensing update vote result and subsequent Wikimedia 
Foundation Board resolution, any content on Wikimedia Foundation 
projects currently available under GFDL 1.2 with the possibility of 
upgrading to a later version will be made available additionally under 
Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Unported.

Specifically with regard to text, after this update, only dual-licensed 
content or CC-BY-SA-compatible content can be added to the projects, and 
GFDL-only submissions will no longer be accepted. In other words, 
CC-BY-SA will be the primary Wikimedia license for text, and GFDL will 
be retained as a secondary license.
]]

According to http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Datasets#h18-18 DBpedia is 
available under 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_Li
cense

Will it also be made available under 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ? ("Attribution-Share 
Alike 3.0 Unported")

What do these distinctions mean in practice when we're dealing with 
mergable data rather than documents?

"Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may 
distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a 
compatible license."

... seems rather strong (eg. for intranet triplestore use).

Is anyone here not not a lawyer?

cheers,

Dan
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 07:59:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:21 UTC