<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Sally Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk" target="_blank">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<u></u>
<div style="WORD-WRAP:break-word">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Aye, there's the rub. Open just means open - in my
opinion it is futile (and unnecessary) to insist on a strict
definition</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div></div></blockquote><div>The problem with being woolly is that it doesn't help when you are taken to court in most jurisdictions. If I re-use a document with a CC-BY licence or a BSD one for software then I KNOW that I am safe from prosecution (or at least I will win the case). If I have something with "Open" it tells me nothing<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">The main objective is that anyone who wishes to should be able
to read the item. All the rest, IMHO, is extra</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br>and IMHO the extras are critically important. We differ and we should have the right to say so on this list.<br>
<br>P.<br clear="all"></div></div><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>