dear Andrew, thanks for taking the time to write,
On 08/02/2010 16:49, Andrew Turner wrote:
We've been actively working with various groups and Lawyers on how CC
applies to data. Obviously there has been a lot of work in ODbL, but
we're still missing the "menu" of available licenses. Currently all
licenses are unique unless they're using PD/CC0.
Have you looked at the data license menu from CKAN.net - the dropdown
list at http://www.ckan.net/package/new - this cites Open Knowledge
Definition compliance for some data licenses. See also
http://opendefinition.org/licenses
A companion service to CKAN is http://isitopendata.org/ - public
conversations with data originators about openess and contraints.
Ideas as to what could be usefully added to this would be apprec -
a registry of license URIs for download URIs, perhaps?
Good question - we've had the GADM data for quite awhile now and I
believe permission was obtained. But I'll get clarity - and a good
reason for some mechanism of specifying data openness in the metada :)
Right, one good reason is that an open license is designed not just to
ensure freedom but to *transmit* freedom (or constraint) to future users
of the work. People who have chosen to contribute data or software to
the commons with a Share Alike clause, like OSM, have likely thought
quite hard about their reasons for doing so.
One should try to honour that intention.
cheers,
jo
--
_______________________________________________
geo-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss
