[odc-discuss] An attribution-only version of the open database license
steve at asklater.com
Wed Nov 18 16:06:51 UTC 2009
On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
> 2009/11/18 Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com>:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>> so this is really two questions:
>> 1. are there some people who would find an ODbL-NC useful?
>> 2. should ODC be associating with NC and other "less open" licenses?
>> i've been answering the first, you've been answering the second ;-)
> Quite right. I think there is no doubt that some people may want NC
> licenses but the real question for ODC is what ODC will/should
> As you will see from my comments below I think we can meaningfully say
> NC restrictions are not "open" and as such I don't think ODC should
> provide NC licenses.
That's the wrong choice. If I am a company with some data you now only give me three options - PD, ODbL (effectively BY-SA) and closed. If I'm perfectly happy for people to use the data in a NC way then I'm out of luck, I just get what Rufus thinks is right and I keep it closed.
With a NC half way house everyone wins and I get to dip my toe in open licensing.
Being an economist I wouldn't have thought you'd want to limit the license market to two extreme positions :-)
More information about the odc-discuss