On 06/28/2016 11:20 AM, Hendy Irawan wrote: > Dear ODC members, I'm merely a lurker...
> I was about to use ODC-BY-1.0 for our open data collection in > https://github.com/soluvas/opendata, > but noticed that ODC-BY-1.0 is not listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ You can ask SPDX to add ODC-BY-1.0 if you wish. > For a license released in 2010 and recommended by > http://opendefinition.org/licenses/, this seems a peculiarity. > > Also, I have never met an open data licensed as ODC-BY so far. CC-BY is > the most popular, and also sometimes ODbL. > > ODC-BY seems to be very similar to CC-BY. So now I wonder, is CC-BY more > recommended over ODC-BY? > Is there a reason why CC-BY is still widely used despite existence of > ODC-BY? CC-BY-4.0 released 2013 explicitly addresses sui generis database restrictions and ODC has been very quiet since 2010 -- last blog post is http://opendatacommons.org/2010/06/24/open-data-commons-attribution-license-released/ > I have a bit of concern that when I'm using ODC-BY, some people will ask > "what's that?" Compared to when they see CC-BY it's something they > already know. Surely this would happen with some people, though I've no idea of the proportion. If you think ODC-BY-1.0 would otherwise work better for your case than CC-BY-4.0 you'll have to weigh whether the benefits outweigh its relative obscurity. Mike _______________________________________________ odc-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/odc-discuss
