Ulf Möller wrote:
> Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons has posted detailed comments on
> the ODbL on the co-ment website.
Though I have a lot of time for CC in general, and agree with their general
stance that PD is the ideal way to go, I don't really find that a very
useful response.
I count 20
TimSC wrote:
> The "safe" move move might be to use the latest date. Now based
> on the Office of Public Service Information web page the copyright
> year IS the year of first publication
My understanding is that this could refer to "first publication of the
revised edition" - in other words, t
Using the last date is the approach I take for the 1:25,000
provisional/first edition maps I'm collecting. Most don't have a copyright
date but luckily I have the excellent book on the 1:25,000 series written by
Peter Hellyer which confirms what year a particular map edition/print
edition appeared
> From: Richard Fairhurst
> Though I have a lot of time for CC in general, and agree with their general
> stance that PD is the ideal way to go, I don't really find that a very
> useful response.
>
> I count 20 occurrences of the word "science", "scientists" or similar; eight
> of "education" an
Henk Hoff wrote:
> For those who still have comments that haven't been mentioned, you still
> have one day to send them in!
>
> The commentspage can be found here: http://www.co-ment.net/text/844/
>
> We belief, with all your valuable input, the OKFN will release a solid
> ODbL version 1.0
I re
John Wilbanks wrote:
> Software and culture work pretty well for the promotion of
> single licenses. But a database of mapping and geo is very different
> from a database of biology, chemistry, or physics. And it's even
> more different than a database of cultural works. The promotion
> of a g
> But open data is much more than just science and education. It's more
> than OSM; it's more than maps. The assiduous
> how-late-is-my-sodding-train-today people on our town website, for
> example, are creating a database that could potentially be licensed
> openly.
Well put.
Then let's op
On 23 Mar 2009, at 12:47, John Wilbanks wrote:
>
>> From: Richard Fairhurst
>> Though I have a lot of time for CC in general, and agree with their
>> general
>> stance that PD is the ideal way to go, I don't really find that a
>> very
>> useful response.
>>
>> I count 20 occurrences of the w
