[open-science] Open Science Microformats/Pattern languages? was Re: Launch of the Panton Principles for Open Data in Science + Is It Open Data?
pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Thu Feb 25 19:47:06 UTC 2010
What we are trying to do is to make it clear what we have to do to satisfy
the principles and the law. I am sure it's achievable. However we have to
accept that it's easy for scientists to get it wrong.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:29 PM, John Wilbanks <wilbanks at creativecommons.org
> To be clear, if there is no legal tool attached, my position is that the
> principles are not met.
I accept this completely and always have. The question is what "attached"
means. I initially thought that the button per se achieved that. Now I
realise we have to do a bit more work. Rufus will post what he and I
considered would do. If we can agree a mechanism that meets your legal
concerns and is manageable by the bulk of scientists - and I am sure we can
- then we are fine.
> If you can't unambiguously tell that the data is legally open, then the
> data is closed. Full stop. If it's in the EU, or the UK, it's definitely
> closed. PDDL, CC0, handwritten note waiving rights, whatever works. But in
> the absence of a pre-granted right to the user, it's not open data.
Never in doubt.
> The point of the principles was to come to consensus about what open data
> was. Legal uncertainty violates every principle we have at Creative Commons
> about open data.
> I hate to be dogmatic, but this is very important. Please copy me on any
> such text so I can evaluate it.
I am assuming Rufus - copied - will post it here.
> If PP turns into making assertions about PD status that aren't backed by
> legal reality, I will be forced to consider un-signing.
I don't think we are near this ...
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science