[Crm-sig] Licensing [was Re: Licensisng]

Maximilian Schich maximilian at schich.info
Fri Oct 24 12:37:33 EEST 2008


The CC web page is great. It is literally six clicks to the license.
You can license any document by linking it to the appropriate cc-license.
As far as I remember the wizard also provides you with some rdf snippet
which can be interated into html to allow for crawling the use of the
particular document (like in a citation index).
There is only one important question: Which jurisdiction to choose.
However, they have an initiative to make the core internationally
applicable (which should definitely apply for cc-by).

Just follow 'License your work' on http://creativecommons.org/
Probably it is also interesting to look into the science-commons
initiative on the same web page: http://sciencecommons.org/

By the way, I would also vote for cc-by.

Best wishes,
max.

Dr. des. Maximilian Schich M.A.
adr.: Westendstrasse 80 | D-80339 München | Germany
tel.: +49-179-6678041 | skype: maximilian.schich
mail: maximilian at schich.info | home: www.schich.info

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if
any, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.



martin schrieb:
> Hohmann, Georg wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>  
>>     
>>> All rights reserved, then?
>>>       
>> I think this is an interesting point.
>>
>>     
>>> Unlike the BIBO and FRBR 
>>> ontologies which have CC-BY licenses?
>>>       
>> In my opinion CC-BY would be a good choice for licencing the definition document. "Creative Commons" was initiated by Lawrence Lessig, and is commonly used in several domains. With this licence everybody is allowed to copy, distribute and to "remix" the work, but there has to be always a reference to the original creators and the licence agreement.
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>>
>> There are several other, more restricted versions of the Creative Commons Licence which would be worth a look. Maybe to restrict the use of the text for commercial purposes would be a point, which could be achieved using the cc-by-nc-licence.
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
>>
>> I guess therefore a clarification with ISO would be needed about possible conflicts with the selling of the text as an iso-document.
>>
>> Well, maybe this is worth a discussion - without hurry.
>>
>> Best,
>> Georg Hohmann
>>     
>
> Yes, a "creative commons" license for the encoded forms, the OWL, KIF, RDFS or whatever encodings of the CRM makes absolutely
> sense to formalize their use.
>
> I am not sure, if this is needed for the textual definitions. These cannot be reused in the way the encoded forms are encouraged to.
>
> They play the role of a community draft for ISO. As such, they are not under ISO copyright, but under CIDOC copyright.
>
> What is formally used for the CC license? Any expert out here to advice us?
>
> Martin
>
>   


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list