Fwd: Data licensing - without rights to redistribute?

Yeah, my thoughts (hi Sarah!): it's been thought, been rejected
Every so often (more often than should be), someone comes up with the perceived need to create a license that would permit “free, but not so free" distribution. Let’s be clear: CC licenses were never, are not, and will likely never be suitable for or rejigged to allow such kind of free-but-not-free reuse.
The perceived need [a] (“so we can track usage”) cannot be accomplished by CC. So, if you are planning to use CC, just forget about this. Change your expectation. You are using CC to achieve widespread (as much as possible) redistribution and reuse of your content, and *anything* that hampers that objective is against the goals and capabilities of CC.
The perceived need [b] ("so they’re getting the data they expect, not a slightly different, slightly fiddled with version”) is expressed more often than should be, by practitioners of certain disciplines more than other, etc. But this need is completely bogus. If CC licenses are used correctly, in the manner prescribed, every modified work (derivative work) will be clearly marked with the URL of the original content as well as the nature of the change in the derived content. The purpose of CC is not to promote original-content-fidelity but to promote content reuse and expand creativity, but also making a link back to the original content, always.
So, the shorter answer (which should have been tl;dr-ed by me), not giving rights to redistribute is counter to the notion of making your content free. It’s been thought, it’s been rejected.
Here is some related reading: http://punkish.org/Shouldn't-Wouldn't-Couldn't
--
Puneet Kishor
Just Another Creative Commoner
http://punkish.org/About

Thank you Punkish
It cleared many of my doubts and understanding. Yes, "CC to achieve
widespread (as much as possible) redistribution and reuse of your content".
Thank you
Sridhar
*Sridhar Gutam , PhD, ARS*
Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) ｜ ​Associate Editor, DOAJ

​​
｜ Convener, Open Access India
ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region
, Research Centre Ranchi
Tata Road, Rajaulhatu Post, Plandu, Ranchi 834010, Jharkhand, India
Phone: +91-651-2260141 ｜ Fax: +91-651-2260101 ｜
Mobile:+91-9005760036;8002678768
Skype: sridhar.gutam ｜ Twitter: @SridharGutam
｜Official Email: *s*
***@***.*** <***@***.***>
Scholarship ｜ Impact
｜ Citations
｜ Blog

*AgriXiv - Preprints for Agriculture and
Allied Sciences*
*ICAR RCER * is a constituent establishment of the
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (*ICAR) *
under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (*DARE
*), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare
, Government of India .
Follow *ICAR RCER* on *Facebook*
and *Twitter
*

Very interesting. Thanks Puneet
-----Mensaje original-----
De: punk.kish=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de punkish
Enviado el: jueves, 16 de febrero de 2017 10:27
Para: Simon Hodson; RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG
CC: Sarah Callaghan
Asunto: Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Fwd: Data licensing - without rights to redistribute?
Yeah, my thoughts (hi Sarah!): it's been thought, been rejected
Every so often (more often than should be), someone comes up with the perceived need to create a license that would permit “free, but not so free" distribution. Let’s be clear: CC licenses were never, are not, and will likely never be suitable for or rejigged to allow such kind of free-but-not-free reuse.
The perceived need [a] (“so we can track usage”) cannot be accomplished by CC. So, if you are planning to use CC, just forget about this. Change your expectation. You are using CC to achieve widespread (as much as possible) redistribution and reuse of your content, and *anything* that hampers that objective is against the goals and capabilities of CC.
The perceived need [b] ("so they’re getting the data they expect, not a slightly different, slightly fiddled with version”) is expressed more often than should be, by practitioners of certain disciplines more than other, etc. But this need is completely bogus. If CC licenses are used correctly, in the manner prescribed, every modified work (derivative work) will be clearly marked with the URL of the original content as well as the nature of the change in the derived content. The purpose of CC is not to promote original-content-fidelity but to promote content reuse and expand creativity, but also making a link back to the original content, always.
So, the shorter answer (which should have been tl;dr-ed by me), not giving rights to redistribute is counter to the notion of making your content free. It’s been thought, it’s been rejected.
Here is some related reading: http://punkish.org/Shouldn't-Wouldn't-Couldn't
--
Puneet Kishor
Just Another Creative Commoner
http://punkish.org/About
--
Full post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/po...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/55322

This announcement by ESA might be of interest to this group
OPEN ACCESS AT THE EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY
For more than two decades, ESA has been sharing vast amounts of information, imagery and data with scientists, industry, media and the public at large via digital platforms such as the web and social media. A new Open Access policy for ESA’s infor...
http://open.esa.int/
cheers
donat