[open-archaeology] Open licenses for archaeological data matter: the case of AustArch

Wed Jul 30 08:19:39 UTC 2014

Agreed that this is an important issue. Anyone mind if we informally point a couple of people at ADS to this list discussion to get their input?

 Andy

On 30 Jul 2014, at 02:34, Ben Marwick <bmarwick at uw.edu> wrote:

> I know the lead author and have raised this question with him. He's looking into it and notes that the main reason for the choice was that the ADS license was recommended by the Internet Archaeology journal. He has made the same dataset available elsewhere on the web (with no license).
> 
> On 29/7/2014 11:53 PM, Stefano Costa wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> this list is admittedly not very active, however I'd like to share some
>> observations I made about the terms of service of the Archaeology Data
>> Service, that started from a discussion on Twitter:
>> 
>> http://archaeology.okfn.org/2014/07/29/open-licenses-for-archaeological-data-matter-the-case-of-austarch/
>> 
>> In short: I think custom licenses such as the ADS terms of use are
>> archaeological remains and should be replaced by standard, open
>> licenses. As Colleen Morgan succinctly put it:
>> 
>> 	What about the professional archaeologists among us?
>> 	They need media [and data] too.
>> 
>> Perhaps we could gather more comments on this and see if there is
>> momentum towards a wider action?
>> 
>> All the best, ciao
>> Stefano
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-archaeology mailing list
>> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-archaeology
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> open-archaeology mailing list
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-archaeology
> 