Re: There's No Money in Linked Data

>>>>> Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu> writes:

[…]

 > But more seriously — you probably see the point: A phrasing like

 > “A piece of data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse,
 > and redistribute it — subject to no restrictions”

 > would be a more serious alternative.  As soon as you make
 > restrictions, things get tricky — and this is exactly one of the
 > points in the paper we circulated.  Attribution or share-alike can
 > already be showstoppers,

 I hope they won't.  Or at least the attribution alone, for I
 believe that under certain jurisdictions, it may be impossible
 to legally waive the requirement to attribute at all.

 (Sure, it's possible for the author to make a promise that it
 won't, under any circumstances, sue for the infringement of his
 right to be attributed, and to live up to that promise, but
 what'd the user do should, say, his or her inheritors change
 their minds?)

 > and for some context can render LOD/LD *non-reusable* — in which case
 > the term “open” appears to be rather misleading.

 Perhaps.  But overall, I'd like to note the ever-present
 necessity to consider this in a wider social context.  Suppose,
 for instance, that under the whatever definition of “open”
 chosen by the community, something falling under such a
 definition would somehow be more of an sure “loss” to the
 community?

 FWIW, I wouldn't readily consider the possibility of someone
 “taking over” the data gathered by the community (as in:
 restricting community's own access to the data inferred from the
 open datasets) to be a clear win scenario.  Thus, I'd consider
 Share-Alike to be a reasonable requirement, unless there're some
 obvious arguments against it in a particular case.

[…]

-- 
FSF associate member #7257

Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 18:22:34 UTC