| To answer Chris's specific question: From my perspective, both 501(c)(3) status where there is no reciprocation, and share-alike in commercial situations sound fine.
It's important to point out that Google's service license is not licensing data. But we are talking about data here. I predict there will be little "BSD style" licensing of geographic data, because gathering it is so expensive. (And you haven't mentioned BSD licenses, which kind of makes my point.)
It seems to me that this folds into the DRM discussion. Before you can have a meaningful DRM technology discussion (if that even makes sense for geographic data...I think it might not), you have to know how you want to license the data. Sort of like agile programming: What data are we talking about, and what license restrictions are we talking about? Let's construct the minimum policy enforcement to handle that, and if it requires DRM so be it, but if not, why do it?
One difference between geographic data and music, let's say, is that data distribution points for geography are far fewer than for music, and so traditional enforcement mechanisms (manual detection and litigation) might be perfectly suitable for geo data. On Oct 15, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Chris Holmes wrote:
Having a framework where we can just refer to a CC-Geo-NP (Creative Commons Geography Non-Profit Use) license or some such thing would be a great benefit. I'm sure that's true for lots of folks.
What exactly do you mean by 'non profit' use? Only registered 501c3 non-profits can use it? Or you mean more like the normal Creative Commons Non-commercial: 'you may not use this work for commercial purposes'? Or more like Google's terms: 'The Service may be used only for services that are generally accessible to consumers without charge.'?
The week before last I attended a 'science commons' conference (see: http://www.spatial.maine.edu/icfs/), with the goal of trying to get some answers about using creative commons licenses for geodata, and perhaps eventually something like a 'geo-commons' license. I did get some decent answers, which hopefully will be worked in to their more generic open data FAQ - in short they do believe is possible to use CC licenses for geodata. But I think we'll have to keep pushing to get more specific licenses for geodata, and indeed good marketing for them, which I think is very important.
I'll try to write up more of what I found out soon, but I'd love to hear more on what people might want out of creative commons licenses (either actual or in the same style) for geodata. My thinking right now is both an LGPL and a GPL style 'share alike' (both require contributions back, one can be combined with other layers, other says all layers must be in a similar license), an attribution one, and I guess a non-commercial one (though that's a huge can of worms that I can't get my head around - how exactly do you define 'non-commercial'). Thoughts? (I'll post a more detailed write up on the OSGeo geodata list and wiki: https://geodata.osgeo.org/)
Chris
On Oct 13, 2006, at 9:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Andrew Turner wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They also seem to be taking seriously and working at using OGC services to provide specific free or low-cost usage of their data, as distinct from "free for any use" delivery of entire datasets. This is a useful and appropriate connection with the concept of mashups. By the way, almost all data made accessible through OGC services and encodings has some rights reserved (e.g. attribution), however they are being regarded as "free and open".
This is assumed for all data sources?
Not assumed, but there are almost always conditions of use. US and Canada are very concerned about the conditions of use even when they distribute data without charge. Liability and all that. Expressing those conditions has just been rather haphazard and not supported explicitly by the OGC Web Services framework up until now (outside of a metadata tag in the WMS capabilities).
My disclaimer: I am working with OS and with OGC on what is called "GeoDRM" but which is actually a wide concept of rights management in the use and distribution of geodata, including such things as Creative Commons and GPL.
So this means there will be a way to specify the actual license under which data is published and aggregated?
The idea is to have a common framework for both referencing and agreeing to a machine-readable license _expression_. Stamping a website with a Creative Commons logo is one approach, but not always the most appropriate, particularly with the variety of ways in which one can process and represent geodata.
Andrew _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list
!DSPAM:1003,452fc659138471665516417! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list !DSPAM:1003,452fc659138471665516417!
-- Chris Holmes The Open Planning Project Geowanking mailing list
|
