Hohmann, Georg wrote:
Hi,
All rights reserved, then?
I think this is an interesting point.
Unlike the BIBO and FRBR
ontologies which have CC-BY licenses?
In my opinion CC-BY would be a good choice for licencing the definition document. "Creative
Commons" was initiated by Lawrence Lessig, and is commonly used in several domains. With this
licence everybody is allowed to copy, distribute and to "remix" the work, but there has
to be always a reference to the original creators and the licence agreement.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
There are several other, more restricted versions of the Creative Commons
Licence which would be worth a look. Maybe to restrict the use of the text for
commercial purposes would be a point, which could be achieved using the
cc-by-nc-licence.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
I guess therefore a clarification with ISO would be needed about possible
conflicts with the selling of the text as an iso-document.
Well, maybe this is worth a discussion - without hurry.
Best,
Georg Hohmann
Yes, a "creative commons" license for the encoded forms, the OWL, KIF, RDFS or
whatever encodings of the CRM makes absolutely
sense to formalize their use.
I am not sure, if this is needed for the textual definitions. These cannot be
reused in the way the encoded forms are encouraged to.
They play the role of a community draft for ISO. As such, they are not under
ISO copyright, but under CIDOC copyright.
What is formally used for the CC license? Any expert out here to advice us?
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
