Re: Fwd: [open-science] LODD Hack Session Notes - Is It Open request signatories needed

> Five databases have a non-commercial clause involved, making it Open
> according to the LODD definitions (correct?), but not Open following
> the OFKN's standards. The original plan was to set up an informative
> package of information explaining why the NC clause causes problems,
> but we did not get around to this. From a LODD perspective, this is a
> non-issue, as I understood (I have not been around when "LODD" was
> defined).

I'm not sure if clear-cut rules for LODD have been defined. However, many 
people interested/involved in LODD come from commercially oriented companies 
(mostly pharmaceutical companies). Therefore it certainly IS a reason for 
concern if 5 out of 12 datasets disallow commercial use without permission. 
It would certainly be helpful to convince these data providers of removing 
the NC clause, but it seems unlikely. Looking at the list of datasets with 
NC clauses (including Drugbank, LinkedCT, major parts of SIDER, STITCH), I 
get the feeling that the providers did not choose to include NC clauses on a 
whim. I guess the best we can realistically do for these datasets is to 
improve the visibility of these licensing restrictions for people that want 
to use them.

 - Matthias

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 09:46:47 UTC