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

[Francis Bond]

G'day,

Thanks everyone for the useful discussion.

[snip]
> Also, I don't think it's helpful to group together CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC. CC-BY-SA has restrictions, sure, but only if you are preparing derivative works or redistributing - not when using (neither activity is considered "use" under copyright law in Berne signatory countries) - whereas CC-BY-NC forbids commercial use[1].
>
> They belong to the set of Creative Commons licenses that do not comply with the OpenDefinition here http://opendefinition.org/
> I also used that categories when drawing diagrams here: http://www.cosasbuenas.es/blog/how-o-is-lod-2015
>
> Regards,
> Víctor
>

Actually, CC BY SA does comply with the open definition and is listed
as one of the conformant licenses
<http://opendefinition.org/licenses/>.
So I think it should be considered open for our diagram.

CC * NC or CC * ND are not open, and I think we should exclude such
resources from the diagram.   If people find it useful then
Christian's suggestion of a larger LLD ('Linguistic Linked Data')
diagram seems a good way to go.

Sadly, anything without an actual license is not open, as the default
is normally copyrighted with all rights reserved.  Babelnet is also
not open due to the non-commercial clause.

GOLD, on the other hand, is CC BY 3.0
<http://linguistics-ontology.org/info/about>, so there is no problem
in including it (someone should update the metadata).


Yours,

-- 
Francis Bond <http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/>
Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies
Nanyang Technological University