On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 4:58 PM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 30 May 2009, at 19:19, P Kishor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Christopher Schmidt >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 01:47:12PM +0200, Marc Wick wrote: >>>> >>>>> Do you think that ODbL is a suitable license for geospatial data? Does >>>>> it meet your needs? >>>> >>>> Definitely not. Data is either open or share-alike. It cannot be both. >>>> Share-alike data is NOT open. It is a serious restriction that prevents >>>> innovation and most interesting use cases from the beginning. It also >>>> makes users vulnerable to any kind of lawsuits. >>>> >>>> Don't get me wrong. Everybody has the right to protect their data, but >>>> they should not call it open if they want to prevent others from using >>>> it. >>>> >>> >>> This sounds like a classic "Viral" vs "Non-viral" discussion -- the same >>> one in Open Source code would be BSD vs. GPL. >>> >>> Is it your reasoning that the GPL is not 'open'? If so, then your >>> point here seems to be contrary to the point of the discussion. >>> >>> SA enforces certain restrictions -- as does "Attribution". Saying that >>> a license isn't open unless a user can do whatever they want with it -- >>> essentially, that only Public Domain is 'open' -- seems silly and a >>> counterproductive point in this discussion. >>> >> >> First, no discussion is counterproductive (well, ok, some other, but >> this discussion is certainly not yet counterproductive). >> >> I may be misunderstanding him, but I don't think Marc suggested that >> _only_ PD is 'open.' I certainly don't think that only PD is 'open.' >> >> Of course, everyone is free to license their data under whatever >> license their jurisdiction allows them to license it under, and >> whatever makes sense to them. However, in the context of scientific >> data, I do believe that SA's viral-ness can create problems. Data, in >> my view, are the non-IP building blocks of IP. By making data >> available under a PD-like data mark, unrestricted innovation is made >> possible. >> >> My view is -- think of what is served by the license you are about to >> apply. Do you gain anything? If you collect a few GPS points, what do >> you gain by licensing it under BY or SA or ND or NC? Are you going to >> become rich? famous? Are you going to ensure future innovation? >> >> I certainly don't believe that I will become rich or famous by >> licensing my data under a license that actually ends up throttling >> innovation even remotely. By putting my data out in a PD-like mark, I >> actually ensure that my data remains permanently open. In fact, PD is >> the most concrete assurance of forever-openness. Sure, someone else >> can take my data, add value to it, and make that value-added version >> restricted. So what? In fact, I believe that is a good thing, and >> because my data are in PD, everyone else in this world has the same >> opportunity. > > Stop taking the high ground. CC didn't succeed by lecturing us all that > things 'should' be PD. >
Thanks for your comment Steve. I didn't realize CC (or anyone) was lecturing on any issue, but your comment is well noted. >> Anyway, getting back to SC's position on geospatial data... hopefully >> SC will have an explicit position on geospatial data that will make >> everyone happy and also promote the cause of forever free and open >> access. > > I just don't get it, why do they need a position at all? Have I missed > something? I want license options like SA and NC and BY, not their > 'position'. > > Did CC spend years on a 'position' before letting us have the licenses? > > Really start listening, we are all not going PD just because you guys think > it's best. > >> I don't speak for SC, but I do have a fairly good connection >> to SC in helping realize that vision, and I believe discussions like >> these will help. >> >> >>> -- >>> Christopher Schmidt >>> MetaCarta >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Geowanking mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > -- 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 Madison, WI, United States _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
