On 7 July 2011 19:08, Peter B. Hirtle <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, 07 July, at 1:52 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > > > > Sure. Many people and groups make unreasonable claims for attribution. > > The scientific community already have expectations for credit when building > on previous work in the form of citing sources. Why would attribution > credit be required for the data, in addition to what is already required for > the previous work as a whole? > > > > Consider using PDDL for both data and database. When applied to the data, > PDDL makes clear that a consumer of the data may use it in any way. If > another scientist builds upon the previous work, they are already expected > to cite the source. > > > > Peter Hirtle’s response: > > I personally would agree with you. I think that science is better when > there is as much sharing as possible. But some scientists believe that > others should not be able to free-ride on their sweat and labors. If this > wasn’t the case, attribution licenses would not be the norm. So in order to > be able to get this scientist to deposit his data in a shared repository, we > need to be able to legally guarantee that he gets credit for the creation of > the data content. If we can’t, he won’t deposit. Unfortunately, there are > no generic licenses that I can find that allow for attribution for content.
To go back to my email reply: could you clarify a bit more what you mean by content and what the exact situation is. From what you've said so far I'm not clear why you couldn't use a suitable license but that may be because I don't understand the problem exactly. Rufus _______________________________________________ odc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss
