The CC web page is great. It is literally six clicks to the license. You can license any document by linking it to the appropriate cc-license. As far as I remember the wizard also provides you with some rdf snippet which can be interated into html to allow for crawling the use of the particular document (like in a citation index). There is only one important question: Which jurisdiction to choose. However, they have an initiative to make the core internationally applicable (which should definitely apply for cc-by).
Just follow 'License your work' on http://creativecommons.org/ Probably it is also interesting to look into the science-commons initiative on the same web page: http://sciencecommons.org/ By the way, I would also vote for cc-by. Best wishes, max. Dr. des. Maximilian Schich M.A. adr.: Westendstrasse 80 | D-80339 München | Germany tel.: +49-179-6678041 | skype: maximilian.schich mail: [email protected] | home: www.schich.info CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if any, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. martin schrieb: > 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 > >
