On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Rufus Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my view http://dmoz.org/ does indeed meet the OSSD:
What about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmoz#Software ??? > a) Data is available (via web and in bulk) > b) Has a license [1] which allows for free use, reuse and > redistribution though, as you point out, subject to a relatively > 'arduous' attribution requirement. However I don't think the > attribution requirement is such as to render it non-open (I think the > test here would be: does this hinder use -- or reuse -- in any > significant way and here, IMO, the clear answer is no). > > [1]: http://www.dmoz.org/license.html Clause 4, Errors and Changes, makes the data non-free http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmoz#License_and_requirements Dmoz was a very important early open content pioneer, but I'm afraid it does not run on free software, does not make its non-free source available, and its data license has problems. So it is non-OSSD compliant all around. I'd be happy to be completely wrong on this, Mike -- http://support.creativecommons.org help us build http://creativecommons.org/asharedculture _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
