[06:51:40] Sob. People aware and willing to use CC-0 held back by noisy chatter on nonfree licenses and whatnot. https://codeberg.org/Codeberg-Infrastructure/growth-data/issues/2#issuecomment-621211 [17:05:33] Hi [17:06:50] !admin@wikidata [17:07:52] <[1997kB]> Sandeep: Hello [17:09:14] Hi [1997kB] I was wondering if this is the right place to ask questions relating to programatically querying wikidata or is there a another channel [17:10:39] <[1997kB]> and why that require admin ping? [17:11:59] because I didn't see anyone type [17:13:04] it is... [17:13:53] <[1997kB]> anyways https://wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:SPARQL_query_service/queries is best place for that and if you don't get any replies there then https://wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat [17:14:27] <[1997kB]> you could also ask here and if wait for someone to reply. [17:14:45] <[1997kB]> and please don't ping admin unnecessarily. [17:15:53] sure.. thanks! [18:12:13] Nemo_bis: That prompted me to actually read CC0 for the first time in many years. You seem to know it very well. Do you know why the Public License Fallback is *non* transferable? [18:16:38] JAA: I didn't know you were here too :D I think that's because it's an attempt to perform a sort of copyright assignment or joint ownership to everyone in the world, but those are concepts that vary drastically across jurisdictions (and in the case of joint ownership, also across US states). [18:18:18] So, instead of giving a license to use/whatever, it's a license to "exercise the rights" [meaning all the potential rights]. A third party doesn't need a sub-license because they already got the first license. Also, the fallback to the fallback ("Should any part of the License for any reason...") is a promise made only by the Affirmer, who cannot force the licensees to make the same promise, so if [18:18:24] someone got a sub-license they wouldn't have this additional protection [18:22:11] Yeah, I'm slowly creeping into many places. :-P [18:22:16] I see, that makes sense, yeah. [18:24:18] Note that this is just my guess based on my recollection of how the CC-0 was written, I might be wrong. What I know is that so far the non-sub-licenseability has not created any issue (AFAIK). [18:26:47] Yeah, don't worry, I'll quote you when I go to court with this. :-) [18:28:34] ^_^