[sc-discuss] GPL - like licence to hinder patents based on derivates of free knowledge?
amit.parashar at acm.org
Thu Sep 14 19:25:48 EDT 2006
I guess the link between Science commons and BiOS would make sense.
I guess it depends on how the Science commons intends on managing
MTA's and if their view is compatible with that of BiOS. I am not
entirely sure what the views (strategy) of the people running the
Science commons is. So it would be interesting to hear more about it
from someone on the inside.
The reality is that licenses are created for specific reasons
(business reasons?) and the science commons, if representative of a
board range of interests (groups), would have to have agreements with
some of the other open access license schemes and bodies that are
interested in putting out patent/copyright related content. Not an
easy task, because there are a couple of key factors that influence
- Investment into an existing license scheme by material creators
(they know what they have bought in to, ie inertia)
- philosophical difference between license creators (we seem to have
a lot of open access licenses, ie fragmentation)
The other issue is that Science Commons seems to be targeting the
Semantic Web as a platform for automatic orchestration of licenses.
So all licenses that merge under the Science Commons umbrella would
have to be syntactically, structurally and semantically
interoperable, I am not sure that the majority of open access
licenses are in that form as yet.
Hope that makes sense, those are my thoughts on the matter anyway...
On 15/09/2006, at 8:34 AM, Papa Schlumpf wrote:
> Thanks, Amit, for the enlightenment regarding my slight
> misconception ;-) Also
> thanks for the link to the BIOS page, their licence seems exactly
> like what I
> was looking/hoping for!
> I can see that science commons is work in progress, so I did not
> fully grasp
> the full aim of the project. So, as I understand it, this is
> practically also
> an extension of CC licencing applied to scientific databases. Which
> sounds very interesting!
> However, I also see much overlapping in the efforts of both BIOS and
> Sciencecommons regarding improvement of Material Transfer
> Agreements (MTAs),
> so wouldn't a collaboration between both projects bear more fruit
> than a
> partial duplication?
>> Hi Peter,
>> I was under the impression that the science commons really dealt with
>> copyright related issues rather than patents. If you are interested
>> in open access patent licenses that deal with the concept of
>> "copyleft", then BiOS (Biological Open Source) might be interesting
>> to you. You can read more about it at: http://www.bios.net/daisy/
>> BiOS deals specifically with patents, rather than Copyright issues.
>> I think CC for Science (Science Commons) deals specifically with
>> copyrightable material, specifically, journal articles etc, and also
>> what has been described as 'thinly' copyrightable material, ie
>> material that has a modicum of creativity in the selection and
>> arrangement of facts and also material that subsists copyright on the
>> basis of labour undertaken or expense incurred in the compilation of
>> facts. At least that is my area of interest, specifically geographic
>> Hope that helps.
> sc-discuss mailing list
> sc-discuss at lists.ibiblio.org
amit.parashar at acm.org
+61 (0)43889 0035
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sc-discuss