It's worth pointing out that in most of the world facts is not copyrightable, and the copyright status of a collection of facts is often not copyrightable. In those instances, CC-BY or whatever license you apply will be unenforceable. I believe Creative Commons themselves explicitly believe that CC-BY and similar licenses are not appropriate for collections of facts.
E.g. they explicitly say on their website: "Copyright does not protect the facts or ideas underlying the creative expression. So, Creative Commons licenses do not apply to ideas, factual information or other non-creative elements that are not protected by copyright."
Courts in many jurisdiction explicitly refuse to accept "sweat of the brow" arguments for copyright, explicitly requiring an element of creativity. Some countries do have "database copyrights" that can protect arrangements of facts in certain ways, while in others a collection of straight up facts can not be copyrighted pretty much no matter what.
E.g. they explicitly say on their website: "Copyright does not protect the facts or ideas underlying the creative expression. So, Creative Commons licenses do not apply to ideas, factual information or other non-creative elements that are not protected by copyright."
Courts in many jurisdiction explicitly refuse to accept "sweat of the brow" arguments for copyright, explicitly requiring an element of creativity. Some countries do have "database copyrights" that can protect arrangements of facts in certain ways, while in others a collection of straight up facts can not be copyrighted pretty much no matter what.