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

[Rufus Pollock]

On 22 April 2010 09:42, Kuno Woudt <kuno at frob.nl> wrote:
> 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).

You're no doubt right -- should have thought more carefully there ;)

>> 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).

I think the plan is for this to be it for now -- as per previous
discussion there aren't plan to do licenses with e.g. non-commercial
or no-derivatives conditions as this would make the licenses non
compliant with <http://opendefinition.org/>.

[snip]

Rufus