[open-bibliography] Orphan data

Fri Mar 2 16:27:22 UTC 2012

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Yes, this is a great idea. Provide a place (dataLeaks? :-)) where people can
> place data that they consider to be open but for various reasons (mainly the
> fact of being a for-profit in a world of greed) they prefer that the
> "liability" be placed elsewhere.
>
> Of course, one possibility is using the Internet Archive in this way. As
> Owen mentioned, they have simply placed many millions of metadata records in
> the archive with no restrictions on retrieving them. But I prefer an
> explicit "data warehouse" and in particular an explicit "bibliographic data
> warehouse." I will talk to the parties and see if we can't at least get a
> dump for the data hub (duh! I should have thought of that). Then we need to
> invent the "no known restrictions" declaration (and logo).

If we provide such a space / concept / logo, then we at the same time
promote the idea that things found say just on the internet with no
claims attached to them are not freely available. Promoting such a
default stance would do nothing except promote the interests of people
who want to own everything. As long as people are indoctrinated into
thinking they are not allowed to do what they want, then they will not
be allowed to do what they want.

>
> Does this sound like an idea?
>
> kc
>
>
> On 3/2/12 2:54 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Owen Stephens <owen at ostephens.com
>> <mailto:owen at ostephens.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    So why not setup a clearing house service by which OKF takes
>>    orphaned data (or other with unclear rights) and publishes it with
>>    an open license?
>>
>>    The Open Library doesn't go this far in terms of asserting a
>>    license, opting for the vague "It's complicated". However,
>>    anecdotally, by acting as an intermediary with an 'open' intent,
>>    they have enabled re-use that otherwise might have been seen as too
>>    risky.
>>
>>
>> I like Owen's phrase.
>>
>> There is also the pragmatic and possibly legal defence of "best
>> endeavour". If we tell the world what we are doing very visibly and
>> after a period then take action then at the very least the damages would
>> be much reduced.
>>
>> We can't protect against submarine suits  but I doubt that's the case
>> here.
>>
>>    Owen
>>
>>    Owen Stephens
>>    Owen Stephens Consulting
>>    Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>>    Email: owen at ostephens.com <mailto:owen at ostephens.com>
>>
>>    Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>>
>>    On 2 Mar 2012, at 09:54, William Waites wrote:
>>
>>     > On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:30:36 -0800, Karen Coyle
>>    <kcoyle at kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle at kcoyle.net>> said:
>>     >
>>     >> don't think so. It's either yours or not yours, I don't think
>>     >> that you can license something unless you've got some legal
>>     >> right to it, and I don't think that a claim can establish that
>>     >> right. (OK, it worked for conquerers and the entire manifest
>>     >> destiny across this continent, but I think someone might call
>>     >> you out if you tried it today.)
>>     >
>>     > I like this thread.
>>     >
>>     > Ownership is not something magic, it comes from the ability to
>>    enforce
>>     > some sort of exclusive right of use or occupation. That's literally
>>     > backed up by the threat of force. Often we don't see that played out
>>     > in places like Europe and North America these days because if I
>>    go and
>>     > occupy, you'll call the police and they'll happily use force to
>>    remove
>>     > me -- that's what police are for. That's so ingrained as to be
>>    obvious
>>     > so it just isn't done.
>>     >
>>     > Similarly with copyright, they'll take you, physically, and put
>>    you in
>>     > jail and shoot you if you try to escape if you try to go too far in
>>     > flaunting the system and step on someone with the will and clout to
>>     > insist on their rights' toes.
>>     >
>>     > Is there any likelihood at all that in this situation *anybody* is
>>     > going to pursue things to a level even approaching that? Most likely
>>     > not. The worst that will happen is someone might write a blog post
>>     > saying they disagree.
>>     >
>>     > So I agree with Mark. Just assert ownership so far as to explicitly
>>     > put the thing in the public domain. If someone comes out of the
>>     > woodwork and disagrees it might make for an interesting
>>     > discussion. I'd wager even that won't happen.
>>     >
>>     > Don' worry! :)
>>     >
>>     > Cheers,
>>     > -w
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > open-bibliography mailing list
>>     > open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>    <mailto:open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org>
>>
>>     > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>
>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    open-bibliography mailing list
>>    open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>    <mailto:open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org>
>>
>>    http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography