Re: [External] RE: UCUM licensing [was Re: Blank nodes must DIE! ]

Uh-oh, my last email (below) to "Abhyankar, Swapna" 
<sabhyank@regenstrief.org> was unexpectedly returned as "User unknown", 
so I am wondering if Swapna suddenly left the company.  Does anyone have 
another contact at Regenstrief we could contact, to check?

David Booth

On 9/15/20 11:10 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 9/10/20 5:45 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> The very fact that this discussion is happening suggests to me that 
>> clearer licensing terms, in particular being explicit about what is 
>> permitted to be done without permission, would probably promote wider 
>> re-use of this UCUM work.
> 
> Absolutely agree.   This is one of the reasons why it is so important to 
> use STANDARD licenses, such as Creative Commons licenses, instead of 
> custom licenses.   Custom licenses are a MAJOR impediment to use, no 
> matter how permissive they try to be, BECAUSE of the effort required to 
> evaluate them, and the uncertainty they create.  Simon's comment is a 
> perfect example:
> 
> On 9/15/20 10:59 PM, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) wrote:
>  > Wikidata . . . does not have the resources to evaluate
>  > the licenses for everything that they would like to use,
>  > so they use a simple criterion: CC0 OK, anything else,
>  > they will build their own ontology instead.
> 
> David Booth
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2020 03:24:43 UTC