On 30 May 2009, at 11:56, P Kishor wrote:
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.
Yes, that's the point. SC isn't doing a viral license because they
feel data 'should' be in the public domain. That's all very
patronising but ultimately it's a disservice to themselves because
there are a lot of us who'd love to release data under something like
CC-SA or CC-NC but don't want to just drop it in to the public domain.
They will use other licenses. If you just go around telling everyone
it 'should' be PD then, well, good luck.
Do you think that ODbL is a suitable license for geospatial data?
Yes
Does it meet your needs?
Yes
Best
Steve
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
