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

Tue Aug 21 16:24:04 UTC 2012

Hey all:

We prepared a blog post to suggest that such metadata is more appropriately
released into the public domain (as is being done by the British Library,
Harvard Library, University of Michigan, Europeana soon) instead of the
going down the licensing route. It's at
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/33768. Comments and feedback
welcome of course.

timothy

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Joris Pekel <
okfn.joris.pekel at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> thanks for this interesting discussion.
> Related to my first question about compatibility with Europeana, this came
> in this morning:
>
> "OCLC and Europeana are collaborating to investigate ways of creating
> semantic links between the millions of digital objects that are accessible
> online through Europeana.eu in order to improve 'similar object' browsing."
> (full text here: http://e2.ma/message/r54dc/v8lk0)
>
> So this must mean they have found a way to make the ODC-BY license
> compatible with the CC0 waiver... (?) Anybody knows more details?
>
> All the best,
>
> Joris
>
> 2012/8/20 Maarten Zeinstra <mz at kl.nl>
>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-glam mailing list
>> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Joris Pekel
> Community Coordinator
> Open Knowledge Foundation
> http://okfn.org
> http://twitter.com/jpekel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
>

-- 
Timothy Vollmer
http://creativecommons.org/about/people/#timothyvollmer
phone = +016086982403 | skype = timothyvollmer | tw = @tvol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20120821/23a1188e/attachment-0001.html>