[open-bibliography] WorldCat API and Licensing

Tue Jan 11 09:20:06 UTC 2011

Thanks Adrian,

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Adrian Pohl <adrian.pohl at okfn.org> wrote:

> As Peter says this is an important discussion and I think the OKFN's
> Open Knowledge definition[1] takes the right stand by denying NC
> licenses the status of openness. Instead of repeating the arguments I
> provide a list of three posts on this topic worth reading:
>
> * The "classical" text on this topic by Erik Möller ""The Case for
> Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License":
> http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
>
> * A post by Rufus named "Why Share-Alike Licenses are Open but
> Non-Commercial Ones Aren’t":
>
> http://blog.okfn.org/2010/06/24/why-share-alike-licenses-are-open-but-non-commercial-ones-arent/
>
> * The article "CBC decision highlights Creative Commons
> drawbacks"shows how CC-NC licenses even cause someone not to use CC
> licensed works at all:
>
> http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/cbc-decision-highlights-creative-commons-drawbacks/
>
> Adrian
>
> [1] http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/
>
>
> Does the OKF have an FAQ? I think it would be useful for the OKF to have  a
place where these links were (moderately) prominently displayed so we can -
when subjects like this arise - point to the arguments.

I have written somewhat more expansively as I have had personal expeience of
the problems of NC.

The licence strategy of the Open Bibliographic Principles remains as being
OKD-compliant.

P.

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20110111/d975e9a2/attachment-0001.html>