On 12/12/11 17:42, Puneet Kishor wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Heather Morrison wrote: > >> Commercial use for the 99% >> Commercial use for socially responsible companies and individual >> entrepreneurs >> Commercial use EXCEPT companies that lobby for more restrictive copyright >> laws >> Free use for students and teachers (this should not be called commercial >> use, because education should not be commercial - the fact that we are >> heading in this direction does not make it a good direction) >> Free and unrestricted use, with respect. If you wish to use data about an >> endangered species to protect the species, go for it. On the other hand, if >> you wish to use the data to harm the species, we should be able to sue. Not >> just the author, either - anyone. > > > There is so much wrong with the above that I don't even know where to start. > It is mixing apples, oranges, and persimmons (for the lack of a better > metaphor).
Quite. At the heart of it are the ideas that use removes value and that we can yoke Open Access to the ethics of anything other than Open Access. Copyleft ensures that use is at the very least distribution. Big evil corporations have more data of use to protect endangered species than academics do to help them attack them. And student loans indicate that commercial/non-commercial is not a useful distinction for education. - Rob. _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
