[okfn-discuss] GNU GPL non-conformant with Open Definition?

Sun Oct 12 14:16:28 UTC 2014

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 3:01 AM, William Waites <ww at eris.okfn.org> wrote:

> I fully understand that these are pathological examples. This is just
> to illustrate that the Open Definition can be used to perversely argue
> that a license that says derived works must be distributed as excel
> files and making linked data is not allowed is in fact an open
> license.
>

I am fully with William here who has provided enough good reasoning
already. I want to emphasize that we should be careful using a license as a
hook to modulate the practice of science. There are many, many use cases
that cannot be reduced to neatly packaged CSVs openable by R, and forcing
the researcher to package data so it may be usable by all and sundry just
to be compliant with OD could put undue burden on an already taxed out
system, much like many other open science-y unfunded mandates.

-- 
Puneet Kishor
Manager, Science and Data Policy
Creative Commons
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20141012/e7bf85d2/attachment-0002.html>