Alexis, thanks for your IA answer.
I do agree with Tom and Lee though, that the current statement of
usage responsibility is not really, err, usable.

I wasn't there from the beginning and haven't read all logs and emails
in the archive, so I don't really know what happened then. It is clear
that there were several imports of MARC record sets, some of better
quality than others, and that a bot 'took' information from the
Library of Congress at regular intervals or semi-continuously. For
each of these sources, there must have been at least a decision to
'take'/start taking the data and I assume something gave the
impression (or better: explicit confirmation) that that 'taking' was
allowed.
Can it be determined for these sources? Talis, sets from several
state(?) libraries, the Library of Congress, Amazon?

Indeed, in the worst case data may need to be removed to make the
whole OL dumps/live content shareable under an Open Data licence. The
OpenStreetMap project changed their licence from CC-BY-SA to ODBl
because the latter was apparently better for sharing data(bases). The
change involved lots of discussion and agreements from each and every
user to agree to the new licence or have his/her contributions removed
on a certain date. Perhaps objects were reverted to the last edit n in
a chain of edits (1, 2, ..., n, n+1, n+2, ...) in which all
contributors agreed to the new licence.
Contributions from companies (like a map producer who provided
complete data for some countries) also had to be relicenced which
required a bit of lobbying, but didn't pose a lot of trouble.
It is important to note that the OSM community has been pretty strict
on only allowing original data or donations of data by the
rightsholder under the right licence terms.

About the cover images: isn't there a fair use in allowing low
resolution images for book identification purposes? I believe
Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons has some rules or guidelines for using
copyrighted images. "I believe that although this image is
copyrighted, its display here is fair use, because .. no open
alternative, small enough to discourage reuse... etc."

Ben
_______________________________________________
Ol-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to 
[email protected]

Reply via email to