[open-bibliography] (Final?) discussion of the openbiblio principles

[Rufus Pollock]

On 7 January 2011 15:20, Adrian Pohl <adrian.pohl at okfn.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2011/1/7 William Waites <ww at eris.okfn.org>:
>> As I mentioned the other day in IRC to Rufus, my only comment is that
>> the strong anti-copyleft position might not be the best. Public domain
>> terms might be appropriate for large institutions, particularly state
>> funded ones, but small independently funded organisations that improve
>> data should be able to prevent their work from being enclosed by the
>> likes of Amazon and still be able to call their data Open.
>
> This seems to go in the same direction as the discussion Rufus
> initiated at the last meeting, doesn't it? In the minutes[1] it reads:
>
> "A question to be resolved is: Do we need in the 4th principle (“…it
> is STRONGLY recommended that bibliographic data or collections of
> bibliographic data, especially where publicly funded, be explicitly
> placed in the public domain…”) a ‘STRONGLY’ recommend for public
> domain or should we drop the ‘Strongly’ and simply recommend? The
> underlying question is whether attribution is rather a problem or a
> benefit in the future bibliographic data environment."
>
> You now have posted another "underlying question" to this: Does the
> current wording scare of small organisations to open up their data?
>
> I wouldn't mind dropping the "STRONGLY". What do the others think?

I'm +1 on dropping the STRONGLY. We could still have recommend and can
phrase as especially applying to public funded institutions (where
that argument is praticularly strong).

Rufus