[open-bibliography] Antw: Re: BL data available under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Thu Sep 2 08:36:20 UTC 2010

As a company I obviously dislike NC. But more generally I would think
it raises all sorts of problems for libraries to get NC MARC records.
Most libraries don't do all their own work, but take part in all sorts
of data improvement, data transfer and data processing relationships,
with vendors in all sorts of relationships. At the most basic level,
libraries exchange records, and there's no reliable way of coding the
legal status of diffs into MARC records. All told, it's unclear to me
what NC would bind, and what it wouldn't, what it would prevent for
real, and what it would prevent because the situation is just too
foggy.

Another question is simple: Is OCLC "non-commercial" or not? I say
"not on your life, they're a monstrous and extortionary data
monopoly." But I'm sure they'd say they were. What is the CC answer?

Tim

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Adrian Pohl <pohl at hbz-nrw.de> wrote:
> See also Rufus' post "Why Share-Alike Licenses are Open but
> Non-Commercial Ones Aren’t" which explains openness as an issue of
> legal interoperability which NC-licences doesn't confrom to[1] or the
> "classic" by Erik Möller[2].
>
> Adrian
>
> [1]
> http://blog.okfn.org/2010/06/24/why-share-alike-licenses-are-open-but-non-commercial-ones-arent/
> [2] http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
>
> Oliver Flimm <flimm at ub.uni-koeln.de> 02.09.2010 09:27 >>>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 04:28:13PM -0700, Jim Pitman wrote:
>> Files are distributed under a
>> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
> License.
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
>>
>> This seems to me a reasonable choice for biblio metadata, and one
> there is
>> some hope of getting big non-profit data providers to use.
>> I dont see any significant downside to the "NonCommercial" feature,
> and
>> "ShareAlike" seems OK too.
>
> hmm, when opening up our bibliographic data with hbz, we discussed
> possible
> metadata licenses quite a lot. Rather quick it was apparent, that
> except CC0 all CC-licenses had its problems - CC-A-NC-SA being the
> worst of all.
>
> Attribution means: When querying and combining thousands of
> SPARQL-Endpoints to finally get *one* result item, then you have to
> stick thousand attribution notices to the item, when showing it to the
> end user. Not very practical...
>
> Non commercial means: Wikipedia, Google and so on can't use it -
> meaning less use and visibility
>
> Share-alike means: The result of combinations of CC-*-SA and CC0 get
> "poisoned" by SA, because parts that once were CC0 are now bound to
> CC-*-SA.
>
> Nevertheless the step of releasing the data is good news. But it would
> be even better with a different type of license... Perhaps they'll
> reconsider their choice at some point and change the license...
>
> Regards,
>
> O. Flimm
>
> --
> Universitaet zu Koeln :: Universitaets- und Stadtbibliothek
> IT-Dienste :: Abteilung Universitaetsgesamtkatalog
> Universitaetsstr. 33 :: D-50931 Koeln
> Tel.: +49 221 470-3330 :: Fax: +49 221 470-5166
> flimm at ub.uni-koeln.de :: www.ub.uni-koeln.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>

-- 
Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding