[open-linguistics] Inclusion of 'non-open' resources in the LLOD cloud diagram

Sebastian Hellmann hellmann at informatik.uni-leipzig.de
Wed Sep 9 09:39:30 UTC 2015

Hi Judith, 
we should definitely have the discussion about which licenses are good for us.

-- Reading my own mail,  I am quite opinionated,  it might not be the wisest to follow my opinions blindly. 

For  some research purposes,  I think,  you can use any data you find on the Web,  regardless of license. So open access is key,  not license. 
Especially,  if you are just doing data analysis,  mining and aggregation.  

Editing and improving data,  e.g. benchmarks ,  corpora needs an open license especially if you would like to republish.  

In my opinion,  CC-BY is the best academic licence.  ( or CC-0,  note that in academica it is unethical to not properly cite used previous work regardless of legal status).  

Share-alike doesn't hit the spot for me.  I would really  like to find a license saying,  if you do improvements,  you have to give them back somehow. 

What we should do as a community:
Critizise license issues and missing open access during peer-reviewing.  Let's say we have reproducibility and sustainability as higher level criteria. 

Also I believe that any publicly funded  project  should make available any data as dump under open licenses according to the open definition without any ND or NC.  This is given that there are some exceptions for industry-driven research projects as well as a necessary strictness if only academic partners were funded.  

OKFN has several initiatives such as http://publicspending.org/ and where does my money go? 

Maybe we should start lobbying our funding agencies to be more strict.  We could do open letters or identify good and bad past projects. 

All the best, 

On 8 September 2015 20:57:31 CEST, Judith Eckle-Kohler <eckle-kohler at ukp.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
>Dear all,
>in research, open datasets are crucial for reproducing and replicating
>As a researcher, I am interested in ways to easily identify open
>research datasets, and for me this primarily means datasets published
>under an open license.
>Therefore, the LLOD seemed to be a place where I could be sure to find
>only datasets with open licenses.
>But I think it might be interesting to think about the inclusion of
>closed datasets into the cloud (apparently some are already included)
>and add a visual marker as proposed by John (for the more restrictive
>CC licenses).
>We might end up in a discussion about license classification, though
>(open vs restrictive vs closed etc).
>Best regards
>Dr. Judith Eckle-Kohler
>Senior Researcher
>Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing (UKP) Lab
>FB 20 / Computer Science Department
>Technische Universität Darmstadt
>Hochschulstr. 10, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
>phone [+49] (0)6151 16-5386, fax -5455, room S2/02/B113
>eckle-kohler at ukp.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de
>Web Research at TU Darmstadt (WeRC): www.werc.tu-darmstadt.de
>GRK 1994: Adaptive Preparation of Information from Heterogeneous
>Sources (AIPHES): www.aiphes.tu-darmstadt.de
>PhD program: Knowledge Discovery in Scientific Literature (KDSL): 
>open-linguistics mailing list
>open-linguistics at lists.okfn.org
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-linguistics

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-linguistics/attachments/20150909/4f642fb7/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the open-linguistics mailing list