Hi, other ontology-projects had have a discussion about licencing too. For example the discussion about licencing the Atom-OWL Version is a good source for arguments:
[rdfweb-dev] licence for Ontologies http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-dev/2004-October/007932.html I took at look at some common RDF/OWL-ontologies and their attributed licences: DOLCE http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html Specification: none RDF/OWL: GNU LGPL FOAF http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/ Specification: CC-BY RDF/OWL: CC-BY DUBLIN CORE http://dublincore.org/about/copyright/ Specification: Dublin Core Licence RDF/OWL: CC-BY WORDNET http://wordnet.princeton.edu/license Everything: WordNet 3.0 License SKOS http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference Specification: W3C Document Licence RDF/OWL: none(?) ATOM-OWL http://bblfish.net/work/atom-owl/2006-06-06/AtomOwl.html Specification: CC-BY RDF/OWL: BSD Their is often a licence for both: the RDF/OWL-implementation and the specification-text. My proposal is to add an explicit licence statement to crm-definition-text too to clarify the use for adopters. The CC-BY-SA 3.0 is a good choice for a rdf/owl-implementation and the text. Best, Georg
