On 9 February 2010 16:32, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > Which is a fair point, but it cuts both ways. If CC is only interested in > catering for the scientific data community, that's fine; but by the same > reasoning, it should make it explicit that it does not provide, let alone > recommend, any particular licence or disclaimer for data outside the > scientific community. > > To get back to the original argument, my personal view is that neither CC, > nor OKFN, nor FSF or whoever should offer NC options with any of their > licenses. Discriminating against a field of endeavour isn't "open", you > might as well have a "no-copying" licence. But that's not the same as saying > CC0 should be the only game in town for factual data.
All I want to say is: "hear-hear" -- nicely distiled these are exactly my views on this topic ... Regards, Rufus -- Open Knowledge Foundation Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ _______________________________________________ geo-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss
