[od-discuss] Schema for open licenses

Wed Jun 20 18:12:22 UTC 2012

Apologies, in trying to express the concept, perhaps "put responsibility on
the publisher" is wrong on my part.  The section I was referring to is at
the bottom of "THE LICENSE" section of PDDL where it states:
"This document permanently and irrevocably makes the Work available to the
public for any use of any kind, and it should not be used unless the
rightsholder is prepared for this to happen."

On review I see CC0 has a somewhat similar (but perhaps less ominous?)
clause:
"You should only apply CC0 to your own work, unless you have the necessary
rights to apply CC0 to another person’s work."

I don't know if these are equivalent or if in fact PDDL is shifting
responsibility.

I was not aware of this aspect of the CC-*-1.0.  That's exactly what I am
talking about.

As a consumer of data I think it's valuable and would like to see the
concept captured in the metadata, with CC-*-1.0 being one that is
explicitly satisfying the condition and I am not sure which others would,
but I assume there would be a process by which that could be determined.

H

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Herb Lainchbury
> <herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
> > For this reason, I feel that licenses that put the responsibility on the
> > publisher ( such as PDDL ) are superior to licenses that
> > simply relinquish rights ( such as CC0 and CC-by ) for the purposes of
> > publishing open data.
>
> Could you point out where PDDL puts responsibility on the publisher
> for clearing rights? AFAICT it is just less explicit than CC0 (but not
> CC-BY* > 1.0) about disclaiming responsibility. They all disclaim
> warranty of title. CC0 adds an explicit disclaimer of responsibility
> for clearing third party rights.
>
> CC-*-1.0 are the only licenses I know of that actually put
> responsibility on the licensor, see
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode 5(a)(i). This
> was dropped in subsequent versions as people didn't want to incur
> additional risk when sharing, see discussion at
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216 and
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3681
>
> Mike
>

-- 
Herb Lainchbury
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
www.dynamic-solutions.com
http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20120620/ff3a066b/attachment-0001.html>