On 2013-03-13, at 12:08 PM, Hans Pfeiffenberger wrote:
Am 13.03.13 18:00, schrieb Heather Morrison: > Here we see two interpretations: a CC-BY license places an obligation for > "full and proper attribution" versus a CC-License for data and text mining > results "would be mostly pointless". You are mis-representing what I said about "pointless"-ness of CC-licenses: I think I made it very clear that I referred to facts (data) only, while RCUK spoke about text (articles). Comment & question My point is that there is ambiguity with respect to the need for attribution of data. The piece from the RCUK policy that I quoted refers to re-use of content using text and data mining - repeated here: 3.1. (i) "Search for and re-use the content of published papers both manually and using automated tools (such as those for text and data mining) provided that any such re-use is subject to full and proper attribution"… from: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicyandRevisedguidance.pdf I am seeking clarity, not aiming to misrepresent anyone's position. If your statement and the statement from the RCUK policy actually are compatible, could you explain how? What I am reading is that RCUK is saying that results of data and text mining (of articles) requires full and proper attribution, while you are saying that with respect to facts / data, there is no copyright and so CC licenses are irrelevant. Am I missing something? best, Heather _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
