W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Information Gathering: License decisions

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:18:28 +0200
Message-ID: <46137B74.2060104@w3.org>
To: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Cc: W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>

Hash: SHA1

Hi Leo,

I vote for the CC approach. Widely used, widely adopted and, last but
not least, widely known.


Leo Sauermann wrote:
> Hi SWEO,
> Ivan Herman had worked on the licensing questions, and Rigo Wenning, a
> legal expert from W3C called me right now and we had a longer
> conversation on the topic.
> It seems that the licensing questions is tightly related to our goals.
> Our goals are somehow set by our manifesto:
> "The Semantic Web Education and Outreach (SWEO) Interest Group has been
> established to develop strategies and materials to increase awareness
> among the Web community of the need and benefit for the Semantic Web,
> and educate the Web community regarding related solutions and
> technologies."
> So I see that our consensus is that we want to aggregate information
> about the semantic web and publish it again under the least restrictive
> license we can get, to increase awareness of the topic.
> To do this, we would need to decide on one license that fulfills this
> and publish our syndicated content using this licnese. We then require
> the authors of content we aggregate to state that their content can be
> used by us this way. Embedding the license info in the RDF data is a
> good thing we can reuse here.
> I now propose for a vote and some feedback, to kickstart the discussion
> we have these options to choose from (plus more you suggest):
> * all content is under no license whatsoever, people making portals have
> to validate the use of the data with the original authors
> * we require from all authors that the syndicated feeds have to be using
> CreativeCommons-By-Attribution
> * we require from all authors that the syndicated feeds have to be using
> W3C software license
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
> I would guess we can come to a quick conclusions, so please say your
> opinion fast and loud :-)
> Additionally, I contact the authors what license they would choose.
> I summed up more questions at the bottom of this page:
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/InfoGathering/DataVocabulary
> There is a balance between restricted and open licenses:
> We need the agreement by the authors that their data is available under
> a license. But as more hurdles we put on adding content, the less
> content will come. But the content will be more valuable. So we have
> less sources, but assured that the license issue is solved.
> It would be possible to tag each item with a license, and pass on the
> license with the item. But this would mean that the users of the
> syndicated data would have to check for each item. This would be
> complicated.
> best
> Leo

- --

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 10:18:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:52 UTC