pcplantdb

[Richard Morris <webmaster@pfaf.org>]

Dear Chad,

Chad wrote:
> I'd like to release my changes but I would first like to have
> something more concretely GPLish to release under than the
> [micro]license from the 2001 pfaf release which my changes are based
> on.  
>
> See http://sandhillfarm.org/research.html for more files.

Rich replied:
> Still in discussion here. But I've found a solution I like
> Its called "Creative Commons"
>      http://creativecommons.org/
>
> This combines several different features for the licence
>
> Attribution. You let others copy, distribute, display, and
>      perform your copyrighted work — and derivative works based
>      upon it — but only if they give you credit.
>
> Noncommercial. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform
>      your work — and derivative works based upon it —
>      but for noncommercial purposes only.
>
> No Derivative Works. You let others copy, distribute, display, and
>      perform only verbatim copies of your work, not
>      derivative works based upon it.
>
> Share Alike. You allow others to distribute derivative works only
>      under a license identical to the license that governs your
>              work.
>
> which we can choose for the copyright.
>
> I think we should go with
>      Attribution
>      Noncomercial
>      Share Alike
> but not
>      No Derivative Works.

Chads comments: 
> This looks good.  I would prefer a broader definition of Attribution
> than the CC license because this will get very messy as the number of
> outside contributors increases.  I guess it would be possible to add a
> *credit* column to pcpdb.botanical_name and pcpdb.references_index
> which would ascribe credit via indexing to everything in the DB.  I am
> at a loss though as how one would ascribe credit to a correction or
> edit.

The text above is not the precise text of the legal bit of the
license, you may find something a little more concrete at
        http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0

What's been going through my mind is exactly that. In my devel version
I've been playing with at home  I have the following structure:

For any one plant there can be a number of contributions
with each contribution by a separate author. 

The interface program can interleave the data so the different
parts of the data are nicely interleaved.

See attached for a sample output, the contributions are noted
by a specific foot note, and the text in the footnote can be configured
by the submitted. (Indeed it might be possible for each contributor
to choose their own licensee, hey your work is your own).

I think that allowing general edits is not a good thing.

I sort of envisage a life cycle:
        1) Initial data submitted.
        2) Various contributions added.
        3) A review process happens to where contributions
                are edited and checked for correctness.
        4) The edited version is then made concrete.

I think having un attributed sources is not a good idea, especially
for medicinal properties of plants. Readers generally need some
check of the reliability of the information.

> I like the CC definitions of Noncommercial and Share Alike, although
> Share Alike is not terribly important to me.

The Share Alike clause is actually very important. Its the whole
CopyLeft GNU type thing, without that clause its possible for
others to make a derived product which is not freely available 
(as in free speech).
 
> The thing that is most important to me about this project is that this
> information be freely available and have legal protection so that it
> remains freely available.  In other words my biggest concern is the
> Noncommercial clause.
> 
> In the past I have used the OPL <http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml> for
> similar projects.  It's worth looking at.

I did have a look at it. I just like the feel of CC better.
I.E. I could understand CC easily but OPL took some work!

The other point to consider is that the data and the programs are
two different things.
I've a feeling that programs, i.e. sql scripts, php pages etc.
might be better going under a a bog standard GPL.

> I am willing to go with CC Attribution-Noncomercial-Share Alike
> license.  What is the next step?

I guess discussion on the mailing list.

For me I should make the sql/php code I've been working on
available. Its only half working at the moment, i.e. its read-only
and you can only add data the hard way.

        Regards

                Rich

--
Plants for a Future: 7000 useful plants
Web:       http://www.pfaf.org/  :=  http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/pfaf/
Snail:     Blagdon Cross, Ashwater, Beaworthy, Devon, EX21 5DF
Tel:       01208 872 963 / 0845 458 4719        
Email:     webmaster@pfaf.org 
PFAF electronic mailing list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pfaf

Title: Open Source Permaculture Plant Meta database

Ribes aureum

Author: Pursh.
Type Species
References 11, 60, 200

Synonyms

Ribes tenuiflorum Author Lindl. 1

CommonNames

Golden currant Author  1

Higher Orders

Family Grossulariaceae Currant family1

Description

Habit : Shrub¹

Height 2.4¹.

Habitat

Key Words: mountain², slopes², ravine², stream², stream², ravine², slopes², mountain²

By streams, in ravines and on mountain slopes[60, 62].¹

Geographical Range

Western N. America - Saskatchewan to Washington, south to California. Naturalized in C. Europe.¹

Growing Conditions

Hardyness 2¹.

Soil Types

Soil weight

Key Words: Requires Well Drained Soil¹, Likes Heavy Soil¹, Likes Medium Soil¹, Likes Light Soil¹

Soil pH

Key Words: Basic soil¹, Neutral soil¹, Acid soil¹

Soil moisture

Key Words: Dry soil¹, Moist soil¹

Shade Tolerance

Key Words: Semi-Shade¹, No Shade¹

Cultivation Details

Easily grown in a moisture retentive but well-drained loamy soil of at least moderate quality[11]. Succeeds in full sun but is also quite tolerant of shade though not fruiting so well in such a position[11]. Grows well on exposed dry sites[85]. Very tolerant of being transplanted[85]. Plants can spread by means of underground rhizomes, especially when growing in moist conditions[164]. Hardy to about -20°c[200]. The fruit can be red, black, yellow, golden or reddish-brown[164]. A very ornamental plant[1], it is closely allied to R. odoratum[11]. Plants can harbour a stage of white pine blister rust, so should not be grown in the vicinity of pine trees[155]. Plants in this genus are notably susceptible to honey fungus[200]. Sometimes cultivated for its edible fruit, there are some named varieties[183].¹

Propagation Details

Seed - best sown as soon as it is ripe in the autumn in a cold frame. Stored seed requires 3 months cold stratification at -2 to +2°c and should be sown as early in the year as possible[113, 164]. Under normal storage conditions the seed can remain viable for 17 years or more. Prick out the seedlings into individual pots when they are large enough to handle and grow them on in a cold frame for their first winter, planting them out in late spring of the following year Cuttings of half-ripe wood, 10 - 15cm with a heel, July/August in a frame[78, 113]. Cuttings of mature wood of the current year's growth, preferably with a heel of the previous year's growth, November to February in a cold frame or sheltered bed outdoors[78, 200].¹

Plant Uses

Edible Uses

Fruit - raw or cooked[2, 11, 62, 101, 257]. They make an acceptable dessert fruit[K] and are also used in jellies, sauces and pies[183]. The fruit can also be dried for winter use[46, 85]. Fairly large and flavourful[85, 183]. The fruit is about 5mm in diameter[200]. Flowers - raw. A very sweet flavour[85].¹

Edible Parts : Flowers¹, Fruit¹

Medicinal Uses

Key Words: Antiinflammatory¹, Salve¹

The dried and pulverized inner bark has been sprinkled on sores[257]. A decoction of the inner bark has been used in the treatment of leg swellings[257].¹

Other Uses

None known¹

---

Footnotes

1pfafrich 14 Oct 2002 Import of Plants For A Future data
2pfafrich 14 Oct 2002 Data derived from Plants For A Future Data using some sort of pattern matching. Validity questionable

---

Interface by PFAFRich