[open-bibliography] Tomorrow: 4th Virtual Meeting

Tue Oct 5 14:34:19 UTC 2010

Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> > >  We agree that collections of bibliographic entries may have property
> > >  rights associated with them, but that individual entries derived from the works
> > >  from an Open collection do not carry these restrictions.

I am not sure why you would want to make any such concession about property rights to collections
of biblio entries. But if you must, let me urge you to replace "collections" by "some collections" and "may" by "might".
This is going to be very dependent on local laws, and likely a difficult legal tangle.
It is important to develop best practices around ownership/control of biblio collections as well as individual records.

> > > They are happy for their abstracts to be in the public domain - this is a
> > > major win. If we can get the rubric right and agreed it is a major
> > spearhead to get other publishers on board. If we can win ones such as nature then
> > I think most of the rest will follow.

Great strategy, I strongly support, and will be glad to negotiate with those publishers where I have some
influence. 

--Jim
----------------------------------------------
Jim Pitman
Director, Bibliographic Knowledge Network Project
http://www.bibkn.org/

Professor of Statistics and Mathematics
University of California
367 Evans Hall # 3860
Berkeley, CA 94720-3860

ph: 510-642-9970  fax: 510-642-7892
e-mail: pitman at stat.berkeley.edu
URL: http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/pitman