[odc-discuss] version 1.1 of OdBL?
rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Fri Jul 16 18:28:38 UTC 2010
On 16 July 2010 12:16, Jo Walsh <jo.walsh at ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Jordan, thanks for all this.
> I'll accept your advice on asking for a review of optionn including PDDL and
> CC0 as well as ODbL.
You'll probably also want to include the Attribution option:
> ODbL has some appeal in cases where a researcher is reluctant to publish
> data at all, where they may be some existing commercial licensing, and there
> may be uncertainty as to the rights of the researcher to publish the data
> that came from "grey" sources.
Absolutely. I think the "share-alike" option can be very important for
people who would otherwise *not make available at all* (or under an
even more restrictive license).
> On the latter point there is little I can do. On the former point,
> researcher concern is "anyone can take my work, build on it, i won't get the
> credit and may lose the opportunity to be funded to further develop the
I think here we want to distinguish between attribution requirements
(provided by both ODC By and ODC ODbL/BySA) and share-alike provided
by ODC ODbL/BySA.
> Citation is key here and perhaps it's warped to think that ShareAlike
> strengthens the cause of citation but that's how it seems to me.
Not sure here. I guess there might be a feeling that more derivative
material (and maybe produced works) end up in the open.
> i would write more but am jetlagged and overworked, how do you react to
> this, i'm glad of your time.
> On 16/07/2010 09:37, Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
>> For research data, I suggest that inline with the recommendations in the
>> Panton Principles and the Science Commons Open Access Data Protocol (for
>> public domain for science data) that any legal review not concentrate on the
>> ODbL but instead on the range of licensing options available. This would
>> include paying special attention to our Public Domain Dedication and License
>> (PDDL) and CC0 by Creative Commons
>> Apart from my personal opinions on the subject, Panton and the Science
>> Commons work do reflect a desire by many in the sciences to go for a public
>> domain approach.
>>> It occurs to me that there may be a version 1.1 in the works.
>>> Is this the case, will changes be significant, is there an overview?
>>> Is now a bad time to expend lawyer brain energy on version 1.0?
>> Like any open license, we're trying to keep track of any suggested changes
>> for a 1.1 version, but no, there is no 1.1 in the works that would surpass
>> the current license anytime soon.
>>> - a quick one page trying to explain to researchers why they may like a
>>> ShareAlike license.
>>> http://chalice.blogs.edina.ac.uk/ - the specific project, but i hope to
>>> get advice i can push around a lot of digital humanities projects.
>>> Jo Walsh
>>> Unlock places - http://unlock.edina.ac.uk/
>>> phone: +44 (0)131 650 2973
>>> skype: metazool
>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>> odc-discuss mailing list
>>> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM
>> More at:<http://www.jordanhatcher.com>
>> Open Knowledge:<http://www.okfn.org/>
> Jo Walsh
> Unlock places - http://unlock.edina.ac.uk/
> phone: +44 (0)131 650 2973
> skype: metazool
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> odc-discuss mailing list
> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Open Knowledge Foundation
Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/
More information about the odc-discuss