Have a comment on the Panton Principles for Open Data in Science? Please leave it below.
We find your work in agreement with what we stand for. We believe in your work and extend full support to further the cause.
Here is a post on Panton Principles on our blog…
Translated in Russian
I feel like 2-3-4 are too repetitive in parts where inappropriateness of other licenses is mentioned.
On this website you make several references to data and content, but I haven’t been able to find any precise definition of these terms.
Is source code not data? What is the difference between a collection of experimental results and the text in a book, when talking about licenses?
Also, you write on the front page that several common open source licenses are not appropriate for data, but give not reason why this is.
Over-all I’m pretty sure I would agree with everything you’re trying to accomplish, but I’m finding it all a bit vague, and this is from someone used to dealing with open source licenses.
I applaud your effort, but you really need to make this much more readable for people who aren’t used to dealing with the issues of open source licensing, which is most of the scientific community. Text like this: “Creative Commons licenses (apart from CCZero), GFDL, GPL, BSD, etc…” is completely unhelpful for communicating your message to the wider community.
The formulation “Creative Commons licenses (apart from CCZero), … are NOT appropriate for data and their use is STRONGLY discouraged” should be reconsidered: CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are conformant to the Open Definition: opendefinition.org/licenses. Even better (more readable, and more easily to maintain) would be to replace the enumeration of licenses with a plain link to the Open Definition site.
Notify me of new posts by email.
All material available under
CC 'by' license v3.0 (all jurisdictions).
Wordpress theme based on Clean Home.