[OSM-talk] opendata diagram
I realized a diagram including all the most important opendata licenses that are now available, and classifying them according to their legal effects (attribution and share-alike, attribution only, public domain). I hope this work can be useful to better understand the actual situation of geodata (open)licensing: http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/05/opendata-graph.html Bye, -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opendata diagram
Forgive my incompetence, but what about other open licenses? Say, CC-non-commercial, Cc-no-derivatives, and a whole bunch of combinations of by, sa, nc, nd? Em you consider them not-open? I'm sure there are more examples, I only know about cc ones. On Sep 3, 2012 3:04 AM, "Simone Aliprandi" wrote: > I realized a diagram including all the most important opendata > licenses that are now available, and classifying them according to > their legal effects (attribution and share-alike, attribution only, > public domain). I hope this work can be useful to better understand > the actual situation of geodata (open)licensing: > http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/05/opendata-graph.html > Bye, > -- > Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opendata diagram
Non-commercial only licenses discriminate against fields of endeavor and are definitely not open. See 6 of http://opensource.org/docs/osd or 8 of http://opendefinition.org/okd/. No derivative licenses are also not open - you can't modify the data. Another explanation is http://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions#Restrictions_which_are_no t_permissible. CC doesn't claim that any NC or ND license is open either. From: Pavel Melnikov [mailto:positro...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 8:31 PM To: Simone Aliprandi Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] opendata diagram Forgive my incompetence, but what about other open licenses? Say, CC-non-commercial, Cc-no-derivatives, and a whole bunch of combinations of by, sa, nc, nd? Em you consider them not-open? I'm sure there are more examples, I only know about cc ones. On Sep 3, 2012 3:04 AM, "Simone Aliprandi" wrote: I realized a diagram including all the most important opendata licenses that are now available, and classifying them according to their legal effects (attribution and share-alike, attribution only, public domain). I hope this work can be useful to better understand the actual situation of geodata (open)licensing: http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/05/opendata-graph.html Bye, -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opendata diagram
My point was, I thought there are many more open licenses than listed in the picture. On Sep 3, 2012 10:47 AM, "Paul Norman" wrote: > Non-commercial only licenses discriminate against fields of endeavor and > are definitely not open. See 6 of http://opensource.org/docs/osd or 8 of > http://opendefinition.org/okd/. No derivative licenses are also not open > – you can’t modify the data. > > ** ** > > Another explanation is > http://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions#Restrictions_which_are_not_permissible. > CC doesn’t claim that any NC or ND license is open either. > > ** ** > > *From:* Pavel Melnikov [mailto:positro...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, September 02, 2012 8:31 PM > *To:* Simone Aliprandi > *Cc:* talk@openstreetmap.org > *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] opendata diagram > > ** ** > > Forgive my incompetence, but what about other open licenses? Say, > CC-non-commercial, Cc-no-derivatives, and a whole bunch of combinations of > by, sa, nc, nd? Em you consider them not-open? > I'm sure there are more examples, I only know about cc ones. > > On Sep 3, 2012 3:04 AM, "Simone Aliprandi" > wrote: > > I realized a diagram including all the most important opendata > licenses that are now available, and classifying them according to > their legal effects (attribution and share-alike, attribution only, > public domain). I hope this work can be useful to better understand > the actual situation of geodata (open)licensing: > http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/05/opendata-graph.html > Bye, > -- > Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opendata diagram
On 03.09.2012 07:08, Pavel Melnikov wrote: > My point was, I thought there are many more open licenses than listed in > the picture. Yet you did not give even one example. Imo, since the diagram only claims to list "the most important opendata licenses", it does exactly what it says on the tin. Tobias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opendata diagram
If you read the opendefinition “A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike.” (here more details - http://opendefinition.org/okd/) you can understand that the CC-NC, CC-ND and the mix of this aren't open license. these are public licenses Jordan Hatcher - the main author of the ODbL and the project Open Data Commons - made this schema http://www.jordanhatcher.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Open_v_Public_licenses_Venn.002-001.png On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Pavel Melnikov wrote: > Forgive my incompetence, but what about other open licenses? Say, > CC-non-commercial, Cc-no-derivatives, and a whole bunch of combinations of > by, sa, nc, nd? Em you consider them not-open? > I'm sure there are more examples, I only know about cc ones. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opendata diagram
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Pavel Melnikov wrote: > My point was, I thought there are many more open licenses than listed in the > picture. If the topic is "the open data license" the schema must be compliant with the open definition where there are only two optional constrains: attribution and share a like. All the other kind of licesens are out of this definition. my 2 cents ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opendata diagram
I thank Maurizio for his precise answer. I quote it completely. And thanks also for sharing Hatcher's schema. Very clear. If you like to deepen the "open database licensing" topic, you can also read my article: - Italian version: Open licensing e banche dati (Informatica e diritto, n. 1-2/2011); - English version: Open licensing and databases (International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, Vol 4, No 2, 2011) [The article is under a CC by-sa license] Thanks, bye. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org 2012/9/3 Maurizio Napolitano : > If you read the opendefinition > > “A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, > and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to > attribute and/or share-alike.” > > (here more details - http://opendefinition.org/okd/) > > you can understand that the CC-NC, CC-ND and the mix of this aren't > open license. > these are public licenses > Jordan Hatcher - the main author of the ODbL and the project Open Data > Commons - > made this schema > > http://www.jordanhatcher.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Open_v_Public_licenses_Venn.002-001.png ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] opendata diagram
(sorry, I forgot the links) - Italian version: Open licensing e banche dati (Informatica e diritto, n. 1-2/2011) -> http://www.aliprandi.org/pub/aliprandi_ied_database.pdf - English version: Open licensing and databases (International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, Vol 4, No 2, 2011) -> http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/62 2012/9/3 Simone Aliprandi : > I thank Maurizio for his precise answer. I quote it completely. > And thanks also for sharing Hatcher's schema. Very clear. > If you like to deepen the "open database licensing" topic, you can > also read my article: > - Italian version: Open licensing e banche dati (Informatica e > diritto, n. 1-2/2011); > - English version: Open licensing and databases (International Free > and Open Source Software Law Review, Vol 4, No 2, 2011) > [The article is under a CC by-sa license] > Thanks, bye. > -- > Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org > > 2012/9/3 Maurizio Napolitano : >> If you read the opendefinition >> >> “A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, >> and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to >> attribute and/or share-alike.” >> >> (here more details - http://opendefinition.org/okd/) >> >> you can understand that the CC-NC, CC-ND and the mix of this aren't >> open license. >> these are public licenses >> Jordan Hatcher - the main author of the ODbL and the project Open Data >> Commons - >> made this schema >> >> http://www.jordanhatcher.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Open_v_Public_licenses_Venn.002-001.png -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
