[odc-discuss] naming the new license - any ideas?

Thu Apr 22 08:42:51 UTC 2010

Excerpts from Rufus Pollock's message of Wed Apr 21 09:59:26 +0200 2010:
> On 20 April 2010 19:18, Jordan S Hatcher <jordan at opencontentlawyer.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > I don't pretend to be particularly inventive on license names [1] so this time we thought we'd solicit some input.
> >
> > I think I'm leaning towards:
> >
> > -- Attribution Database License - ADbL
> >
> > Other options being mooted are:
> >
> > -- ODC Attribution
> >
> > ...and moving to a CC style elements of something like ODC-BY
> 
> Could we have ODC-By on the list :)

I assume the intent is for "ODC Attribution" to be the full name for ODC-BY.
(in the same way that Creative Commons Attribution is shortened to CC-BY).

> The question for me here (and I think Steve raised this originally) is
> keeping some consistency in naming. If we use ODC-{xx} here should we
> not move to it for the other licenses? (Which is difficult given they
> are already out there ...).

How many more licenses does ODC intend to create?  I assume these two will
be it for now, but if not.. then it does make sense to think about the
branding of the whole family of licenses now (when there is just one
license actually in use).

> Also I have a (not very strong) preference for FSF style license
> names, where the name is for the license itself without any FSF
> "branding", rather than CC type naming where the CC "brand" is
> prominent in the license name (with the risk that the "brand"
> dominates the license).

I agree with this.  I like the symmetry of ADbL with ODbL, I voted
accordingly on the doodle page.

-- kuno.