[open-government] Share-alike

Sat Sep 17 09:20:52 BST 2011

the SA clause is good.

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 09:44:37AM +1000, Brendan Morley wrote:
> It seems like your city wants to discriminate against the innovator
> / entrepreneurial class.

i beg to disagree you can in fact be an innovator and honor the SA.

> Share-Alike has the effect of the author still trying to reserve its
> rights against commercialisation of its data. 

nope, it only keeps the data free and prohibits the privatization of the
commons. which i'd say that's not innovation but robbery.

> (After all, the
> author itself doesn't *have* to SA, only the downstream users!)

so the one creating value should not have privileges?

> Whereas non Share-Alike puts everyone on the same playing field for
> downstream value adding.

being on the same playing field is good, no?

> I'd be interested to know why SA was considered by the city in the
> first place.  It seems like cargo cult thinking.

pls refrain from insulting people creating values for the commons.

> depends on liberally licensed works as contributions (i.e. CC By and
> public domain), but in turn it also allows full geodata
> roundtripping between government-crowd-commercial.

how can you ensure roundripping back from commercial to crowd and gov without
an SA licence? or do you mean with roundtripping gov-crowd-corporatelockin?

> Other references: http://www.ausgoal.gov.au/the-ausgoal-licence-suite -
> "Among those, the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY) [...]
> provides the greatest opportunities for re-use of information"

i'd like to see the study that is the foundation for this statement.

-- 
gpg: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/stef.gpg
gpg fp: F617 AC77 6E86 5830 08B8  BB96 E7A4 C6CF A84A 7140