W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2009

Re: LOD Data Sets, Licensing, and AWS

From: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:36:03 +0100
Message-ID: <ec8613a80906231636s1152732cob453de0b94112826@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Cc: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, public-lod@w3.org
On Wednesday, June 24, 2009, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/6/24 Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> Using licensing to ensure the data providers URIs are always preserved delivers low cost and implicit attribution. This is what I believe CC-BY-SA delivers. There is nothing wrong with granular attribution if compliance is low cost. Personally, I think we are on the verge of an "Attribution Economy", and said economy will encourage contributions from a plethora of high quality data providers (esp. from the tradition media realm).
> Regardless of any attribution economy, CC-BY-SA is basically unenforceable for data so is not appropriate. You can't copyright the diameter of the moon.
> Ian
> Interestingly, there is a large economy involved with patenting gene sequences. Aren't they facts also? Why is patenting different to copyright in this respect?

I can't explain the technicalities (IANAL) but there are many
different types of property rights that are granted by governments
over information : copyright, database right, patent right, moral
right etc. Each of those have seperate legislation that varies by
jurisdiction (WIPO is attempting to normalising some of them). It's
complicated which is why the efforts of creative commons, science
commons and open data commons are so valuable: they create simple ways
for people to declare the conditions under which their data and
content can be reused.

Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 23:36:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:57 UTC