[geo-discuss] [Geodata] Re: Geodata in CKAN and collaboration (was Re: Responding to the consultation on opening Ordnance Survey's data)

[SteveC]

On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Puneet Kishor wrote:
> No one is telling anyone what "should" happen to anyone's data, not

Er, Science Commons does, as I pointed out in the last email.

> anymore than anyone was ever told what should happen to their
> copyrightable works. Yet, a few hundred million took the CC licenses
> and used them. Maybe the same would happen with a data mark such as
> CC0, maybe it won't,

No, it won't. Because it's entirely different.

With CC I have a variety of copyright licenses.

With SC I have a sermon on why I 'should' use CC0, and no other options.

And, a bunch of non-lawyers talking about how data licensing works is entirely uninteresting to me, hence my responses I linked to in the other email I sent which were primarily to a another non-lawyer, John Wilbanks. It turns out if you talk to actual lawyers, it's really nowhere near clear cut as you and John claim, and data licenses are perfectly possible. As should be obvious to anyone, because they've existed for decades in proprietary form.

> but the faith that people worldwide put into
> Creative Commons and its licenses is something to carefully nurture,
> respect, and, of course, use to one's advantage.

Yes - and Science Commons should really be doing that with data, rather than preaching CC0 only.

But I've given up on them anyway, the point is can we build a license menu with OKFN, or not?

Yours &c.

Steve