[open-science] IsItOpen letter for feedback

Sat Nov 27 14:21:59 UTC 2010

Good point.

Two possibilities, I think. By "we believe there is a potential obligation"
they either meant "we release the data under under an occasional obligation
to" or as "we think the best practice community norm is."

What do you think?

For list reference, here are their answers under discussion:

*

4) YES – If substantial data is taken from a paper we believe there is a
potential obligation on the extractor to request permission from the author
(of the paper) about the re-use of their data, and a requirement to credit
the original author.

5) YES – If substantial data is taken from a paper we believe there is a
potential obligation on the extractor to request permission from the author
(of the paper) about the re-use of their data, and a requirement to credit
the original author.
*

Heather
(comment now approved)

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Egon Willighagen <
egon.willighagen at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Heather Piwowar <hpiwowar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Note that Nature's response requires some careful reading.  Nonetheless,
> > kudos to them for responding.
>
> Indeed. I left a comment in your blog post (being moderated).
>
> "About that YES on 4 ("May the extracted data be used as Open Data
> [1,2] without discrimination against users, groups, or fields of
> endeavor?") and 5 ("May users expose the extracted data as Open Data
> [1,2], in a manner consistent with the Panton Principles
> (http://pantonprinciples.org/)? Specifically, may they expose the
> extracted data on the internet under a Public Domain, PDDL
> (http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/) or CC0 waiver
> (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0)?").
>
> I am wondering if that answer should not really be a NO. That is, they
> clearly write that if you extract significant data, you still require
> permisson. That does not sound like Open Data to me.
>
> Do you agree with Nature that their answer is really YES, instead of
> NO or YES/NO? If so, what arguments would you give for that? If not,
> why do you think their answer does not open the doors for
> discrimination against users, groups, or fields of endeavor?"
>
> Egon
>
> --
> Dr E.L. Willighagen
> Postdoctoral Research Associate
> University of Cambridge
> Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/
> LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw
> Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/
> PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers
>

-- 
Heather Piwowar

DataONE postdoc with NESCent and Dryad
  remote from Dept of Zoology, UBC, Vancouver Canada
hpiwowar at nescent.org
http://researchremix.org
@researchremix
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20101127/8fd2414e/attachment-0002.html>