[open-bibliography] BibSoup/BibServer collaboration model?

[Thad Guidry]

There is a COST to collecting facts, however.  Each one of us on this list
gets PAID for our time by our employers collecting various facts and even
maintaining them.  Someone has to bear the cost of collecting and
maintaining public facts, and others will want to form a business model in
maintaining and improving the collection of those public facts.  I agree
that Mendeley is not a public institution, and I also agree that Mendeley
with good technological resources and ideas is allowed to form that
business model.

Kudos to Adrian and team for continuing to collect the facts and open them
up from the public sources, just as Mendeley does themselves, but perhaps
sometimes Mendeley does this with more "flair" and "excitement" because of
a polished user interface that had a COST to build.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu>wrote:
>
>> -- Any content obtained from Mendeley must include proper attribution as
>> such. Mendeley brand elements should be placed within close proximity to
>> the content, so that the users can easily understand the source. For those
>> wishing to brand the content as their own, please contact
>> trademarks at mendeley.com with the subject line "SELF BRANDING."
>>
>> I do not think this community should encourage or condone this sort of
>> commercialization of
>> biblio data. I would rather see promotion of ideas of provenance of
>> biblio data, enforced by
>> open community norms, rather than legal attribution requirements. I would
>> rather see us promote
>> non-commercial alternatives, and create bibliographic stores unencumbered
>> with BY requirements,
>> but including provenenance assertions whenever possible.
>>
>> I agree. A year ago Adrian Pohl led the OKF effort to create Principles
> for Open Bibliography:
> http://openbiblio.net/principles/
> We worked hard on this and recommended that licences should be CC0. We
> realised that attribution was not appropriate for bibliographic data ,
> which we see as FACTUAL data and therefore effectively in the public domain.
>
> (I hadn't seen the Mendeley "requirement" for "attribution". This is
> extremely similar to claiming database rights and IMO has no place. )
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>
>


-- 
-Thad
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20120202/c0558f58/attachment-0001.html>