On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Rufus Pollock <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 14 October 2010 13:52, Tom Heath <[email protected]> wrote: > > Great news :D > > > > Does this mean we need some additional sets of norms defined? IIRC > > there are not many defined at the moment (though I may be wrong)... > > Yes, at the moment the only norms are the 'attribution-sharealike' ones: > > <http://www.opendatacommons.org/norms/odc-by-sa/> > > I think it would be easy to create, at least, the attribution norms > simply via judicious 'cutting' from these ones. Do people think that > would be useful? > > Yes. I also think it would be useful to think about some of the recurring concerns that people have about making their content open. Some we may feel are inappropriate but here is a try: * respect privacy of humans, sensitive places (e.g. nesting sites). This seems to be generally agreed as a norm * repect the quality of information. This is not always possible but copy and re-use should use best endeavour to preserve things such as character encoding, technical information, quality of graphics. It is unacceptable to distribute corrupted information which is attributed to someone not responsible. * respect the integrity of information. Very difficult, but taking snippets out of context can be damaging. Removing packaging and metadata (e.g. table/figure captions) can also distort information. P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
