Talk:Abstract Wikipedia/Updates/2021-12-21

@DVrandecic (WMF): Having read the Office Hour transcript, I can see no new arguments advanced in it that had not previously been advanced in the talk page discussion. So what was the reason for the apparent change with regard to Abstract content?

What I am referring to is this. You say overleaf that "Abstract Content for Abstract Wikipedia will be published under CC BY-SA 3.0." However, you add, in the points of feedback, "we will leave the question about the license of the generated content from the abstract content open for now."

Content generated from the abstract content would be a derivative work. As such it would need to be published under the same licence. How then can you leave the question "open"?

To illustrate this, let us take the Simple English Wikipedia article on Jupiter, which was one of the examples provided by your team. You showed how you would create an Abstract representation of this Wikipedia article, a translation of the article into Wikifunctions code. This Abstract content could then in turn be automatically translated into any human language.

Are you now saying that the human-language translation of the CC BY-SA Abstract content, which is a translation of the CC BY-SA Simple English Wikipedia article, could be anything other than CC BY-SA? --Andreas JN466 20:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Just pointing to the discussion here:Talk:Abstract Wikipedia/Licensing discussion#Pinging editors --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)