On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:28 PM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 May 2009, at 09:21, P Kishor wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 29 May 2009, at 19:43, P Kishor <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I will be attending the OGC Geospatial Rights Mgt. Summit to be held >>>> at MIT on June 22. I will be giving a 10 min. lightning talk on SC's >>>> thoughts on spatial data, and also be participating in the panel >>>> discussions. Please do send me your input on questions/concerns that >>>> you would like to see discussed/highlighted there that I could >>>> possibly bring up. >>> >>> Has SC moved on from "everything 'should' be public domain" ? >>> >>> >> >> As far as I understand, SC is for "everything that should be public >> domain should be public domain," which is significantly different from >> "everything should be public domain." > > And who is deciding the 'should'? SC has to step away from deciding that > everything 'should' be PD.
hmmm... perhaps I didn't express my understanding clearly. I used the term should as a response to your using should. Now I see that you have quoted 'should,' so your query is about how one determines that something should be in PD. SC doesn't do any such determination. SC tries to advise, on a non-binding basis, based on local laws. Since scientific endeavors tend to be cross jurisdiction, it is difficult, if not impractical, to come up with an all-encompassing license. In the US, pure data are not copyrightable, hence CC licenses, which are really another form of copyright, are not applicable. One could definitely utilize whatever mechanism is available in one's jurisdiction. SC has no quibbles with that. However, the advise is that if one wants one's data to be made available most freely so that other scientists are able to use the data in their work, then something like CC0 would be a good option. Nevertheless, you have a valid concern, and I will bring it to SC's attention. > > Alternatively CC and Flickr could only let you upload CC-BY photos because > photos 'should' be CC-BY. > > I should be able to choose from a variety of SC data licenses just like I > can choose BY, SA, NC from CC. Unfortunately I can't, because SC has taken a > big step beyond what their remit would ideally be and attached a moral high > ground to the license rather than let me have the choice about my data. > That's why the Open Database License now exists. Do you think that ODbL is a suitable license for geospatial data? Does it meet your needs? > > Best > > Steve > -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org/ Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org/ Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/ Science Commons Fellow, Geospatial Data http://sciencecommons.org Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- collaborate, communicate, compete ======================================================================= Sent from Stockholm, AB, Sweden _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
