[odc-discuss] An attribution-only version of the open database license
jonathan.gray at okfn.org
Wed Nov 18 11:26:54 UTC 2009
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> and, of course, if someone really wants an NC license they could just
>> hack it into the ODbL, or create their own. nothing is gained from not
>> having a license variant, just because we don't agree with it.
> It's whether or not you want to lend them your credibility. It's whether or
> not you want your "brand" (ODbL, or OKFN) to cover "less open" things also.
Yes, just to make it clear, the OKF promotes licenses/legal tools
which are open in accordance with the Open Knowledge Definition:
This does not include NC/ND licenses.
> Taking your example, and Steve's "giving people choice", to the extreme that
> would mean that Creative Commons should also create a
> "CC-All-Rights-Reserved" license because hey, people are going to do that
> But maybe I'm too political here; personally, I think that the "ND" and "NC"
> licenses that CC seem to support are a step *away* from what my idea of a
> "creative commons" (without the caps) is, and I would at least urge OKFN to
> think hard whether it is in their interest to endorse licenses that have
> building blocks like that.
> odc-discuss mailing list
> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
The Open Knowledge Foundation
More information about the odc-discuss