On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Sally Morris <[email protected]>
wrote:
Aye, there's the rub. Open just means open - in my opinion it is futile
(and unnecessary)Â to insist on a strict definition
Â
The problem with being woolly is that it doesn't help when you are taken to
court in most jurisdictions. If I re-use a document with a CC-BY licence or a
BSD one for software then I KNOW that I am safe from prosecution (or at least I
will win the case). If I have something with "Open" it tells me nothing
The main objective is that anyone who wishes to should be able to read the
item. All the rest, IMHO, is extra
and IMHO the extras are critically important. We differ and we should have the
right to say so on this list.
P.
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
