[open-science] Share Alike? Or not?

Klaus Graf klausgraf at googlemail.com
Thu Jun 14 12:03:40 UTC 2012

CC only concerns the Copyright, not patents.

Klaus Graf

2012/6/14 Matthew Todd <matthew.todd at sydney.edu.au>:
> Hello everyone,
> Another licence question. Our open science projects on The Synaptic Leap are
> covered by a creative commons licence - currently a slightly out-of-date
> CC-BY-2.5.
> The open source drug discovery for malaria project (taking place on the same
> site, but also elsewhere) is generically covered by CC-BY-3.0
> http://openwetware.org/wiki/OSDDMalaria:GSK_Arylpyrrole_Series:Story_so_far
> We need to deal with the various inconsistencies, and since we're writing up
> the first paper on the malaria work we need to firm up the overall licence.
> This brought up the following fact: I don't know whether we should be Share
> Alike or not.
> My feeling is that anyone should be able to use whatever we do, provided
> there is attribution. To be honest our desire for attribution is mainly
> about insisting on good practice - don't use something without quoting the
> source. Partly it's about wanting to try to recruit more people to a unified
> project.
> However, there's a question about whether we ought to be insisting on Share
> Alike. I need clarification on the following from knowledgeable people:
> The Share Alike licence we'd use
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) includes the following
> phrase: "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may
> distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this
> one"
> The key word is "distribute", meaning that under the terms of that licence
> it would be possible for a company to take the results from our malaria
> work, internalise those results and use them to make money via a patent,
> correct? Since that process does not involve "distributing" anything?
> Is that correct? I am keen not to bar commercial spin-offs from our work. I
> am keen to avoid licences that might make companies wary. Naturally those
> spin-offs should not restrict what we are doing in any way.
> By NOT using share-alike, are we exposing ourselves to some difficult
> situation we've not predicted?
> Cheers,
> Mat
> --
> MATTHEW TODD | Senior Lecturer and Honours Coordinator
> School of Chemistry | Faculty of Science
> Rm 519, F11 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
> T +61 2 9351 2180  | F +61 2 9351 3329  | M +61 415 274104
> E matthew.todd at sydney.edu.au  | W
> http://sydney.edu.au/science/chemistry/research/todd.html
> CRICOS 00026A
> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised use
> is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please delete it
> and any attachments.
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science

More information about the open-science mailing list