[open-heritage] OCLC recommends Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-BY) for WorldCat data

Mon Aug 20 14:39:00 UTC 2012

Hi Daniel,

Compliant is not the same as compatible. Compliance is, in my view, understanding and implementing and abstract idea. Under compatible I would say that the two system are interchangeable. Now although the licenses comply with the Open Definition they are not compatible with each other. There are some differences in the implementation of the licenses that cause this. 

In practice this would mean that every peace of metadata needs to be separately licensed to ensure that the correct license/ permissions are communicated. That does not make open data workable, and very bloated.

Cheers,

Maarten

Kennisland | Knowledgeland

t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | s mzeinstra
www.kennisland.nl | www.knowledgeland.org

On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:40 , Daniel Dietrich <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> interesting thread.
> 
> On 8 Aug 2012, at 14:27, Maarten Zeinstra wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Compatibility matters, a lot. When you cannot mix two datasources or force a product of a mix into an unfavourable license things go bad.
> 
> Agree.
> 
>> You cannot create new works by mixing CC-BY with ODC-BY or the UK's Open Government License. They are not compatible. 
> 
> Is this really that simple? For example CC-BY with ODC-BY are both compliant with the Open Definition and UK OGL has a good chance to become listed as such. So I guess if this is the case the question is more what does it mean in practice if you would mix data under all 3 licenses for licensing downstream. 
> 
>> 
>> This has major effects on the usability and economical viability of the open data market. In essence it creates three separate markets that cannot fully interact. 
> 
> Maybe some of you would like to join the next call on licensing scheduled for 
> 
> Thursday, 6th September at 16:00 UTC / 17:00 BST / 18:00 CEST
> http://opengovernmentdata.okfnpad.org/call
> 
> This is a joint call of the OGD working group and the Open Definition Advisory group. 
> 
> All best
> Daniel
> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Maarten
>> 
>> On Aug 8, 2012, at 12:37 , Jo Walsh <jo.walsh at ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks, Joris,
>>> 
>>> Quoting Joris Pekel <okfn.joris.pekel at googlemail.com> on Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:54:19 +0200:
>>> 
>>>> OCLC <http://www.oclc.org/uk/en/default.htm> announced yesterday that they
>>>> are recommending the Open Data Commons Attribution License
>>> 
>>>> Why not go
>>>> CC0<http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/>
>>>> /PDDL <http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/>
>>> 
>>> Or, "why not go OdBL, with the full ShareAlike clause?" http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
>>> 
>>> ( sorry )
>>> 
>>> The use of ODC-BY makes sense to me here, in that it has very similar terms to the Open Government License (in the UK). We want attribution, say data providers, while hesitant about the uncomfortable virality of ShareAlike (or unclear, with some reason, about its benefits). We dont want to worry about interoperability.
>>> 
>>> Why not? Who would gain? Who might lose out? Perhaps this line of thinking is too Anglo-Saxon. Go Europeana!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-glam mailing list
>>> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-glam mailing list
>> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> 
> 