Closed dracos closed 11 years ago
Hi @dracos.
That list doesn't represent the licences we recommend, just the licences attached to some of the data sources on our site. I agree that CC isn't really appropriate for data (although is this still true of their 4.0 version?), but that's not something we can really control. Also it's worth noting that some of the sources on the site contain content (images, text, etc) as well as [meta]data.
Perhaps this is something we should explain more clearly though.
They're the choices/used in all the examples, note :) Ah, I didn't realise 4.0 had been released, perhaps that changes things!
@dracos we should add the ODbL licence to the list, for sure.
We were considering having licences as a possible filter in the index view, but it didn't feel as strong a use-case as Category or Size...
I'll extend the choices in the examples / blanks / about, then!
On 28 Nov 2013, at 14:49, Matthew Somerville notifications@github.com wrote:
They're the choices/used in all the examples, note :) Ah, I didn't realise 4.0 had been released, perhaps that changes things!
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
I've added more to the list of licenses in the about page and the example file. Closing for now - thanks for the poke Matthew!
Creative Commons licences as mentioned on
/about
are not really suitable for data, they are licenses for content. See http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/ for some suitable data licenses, and http://opendatacommons.org/faq/licenses/#Why_Not_Use_a_Creative_Commons_or_FreeOpen_Source_Software_License_for_Databases for the explanation on CC. Or OSM's move from CC to ODbL: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F