[open-bibliography] getting a personal bib library out

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu>wrote:

> Mark MacGillivray <mark at odaesa.com> wrote:>
> > Given that we wrote the principles last year and link to them from the
> > front, our entire point is that bib metadata are facts. If we stick
> > licenses on them, they will appear licensable. so the license is about
> whatever the record is about.
>
> We cannot expect all BibJSON users to follow this chain of reasoning. We
> must be explicit about it in the spec.
>

There are the following problems:
* it is technically not easy to add a complete licence (CF CC licences in
RDF for adding to HTML pages)
* We don't think licences are the right way to go about asserting Open
Bibliography.

However I think it highly useful to have a single non-legal field such as
    "rights" : http://openbiblio.net/principles/
This ;points the users to our site, costs little real estate and is
educative
> Are you saying we should change bibjson so that license is just a string
then?

> Just a url, yes, for the license assertion on the biblio record, that
> might be useful.
> Biblio records may carry baggage with them which is licensable or
> copyrightable even if the basic metadata are not.
> Especially, I think we should consider a practice of attaching abstracts
> and keywords or subject tags, even if taken from
> a publisher's site, with a claim of "fair use" by US copyright doctrine.
>

Quoting US fair use will not have any weight in a European court


> This may be something for the broader list, not just the dev list.
>

Agreed

-- 
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/20120205/e9996754/attachment-0001.html>