Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orcus" data-source="post: 253777" data-attributes="member: 1254">Sure. Open means open.Thats true.But the POWER to do something and the PROPRIETY of doing it are two different things. You cant remove a moral element from an act.I do find it funny that some who are in the &quot;open means open&quot; camp and who want to repost OGC whenever they want because the rules allow them get mad when publishers make elaborate designations because the rules allow them. You cant have it both ways kids. Designations have to be &quot;clear&quot;. That itself is not very clear. It certainly doesnt say &quot;easy to reuse&quot; or &quot;easy on subsequent user&quot;. In fact, a designation could be clear but requre a good deal of work. Remember, you cant just be clear, you have to be clear and compliant. If your &quot;clear&quot; deisgnation has an error, you are not compliant. That, frankly, goes a long way to explaining the rather complicated designations some people use.The rules allow people to &quot;obfuscate&quot; OGC to some extent or render it not that usable (names PI, stats OGC). That sort of content is not that usable (unless, as we have done, you add a license allowing the use of the PI content). But just like the rules allow you to reuse OGC, it doesnt require anyone to make it easy on you.I am against purposeful obfuscation of OGC just like I am against wholesale redistribution of OGC without permission. Both are allowed by the &quot;rules&quot; (you have the POWER to do it) but it would be wrong to do so (it would be IMPROPER).This very topic has been a favorite topic of mine since the inception of the licenses.Clark</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orcus, post: 253777, member: 1254"] Sure. Open means open. Thats true. But the POWER to do something and the PROPRIETY of doing it are two different things. You cant remove a moral element from an act. I do find it funny that some who are in the "open means open" camp and who want to repost OGC whenever they want because the rules allow them get mad when publishers make elaborate designations because the rules allow them. You cant have it both ways kids. Designations have to be "clear". That itself is not very clear. It certainly doesnt say "easy to reuse" or "easy on subsequent user". In fact, a designation could be clear but requre a good deal of work. Remember, you cant just be clear, you have to be clear and compliant. If your "clear" deisgnation has an error, you are not compliant. That, frankly, goes a long way to explaining the rather complicated designations some people use. The rules allow people to "obfuscate" OGC to some extent or render it not that usable (names PI, stats OGC). That sort of content is not that usable (unless, as we have done, you add a license allowing the use of the PI content). But just like the rules allow you to reuse OGC, it doesnt require anyone to make it easy on you. I am against purposeful obfuscation of OGC just like I am against wholesale redistribution of OGC without permission. Both are allowed by the "rules" (you have the POWER to do it) but it would be wrong to do so (it would be IMPROPER). This very topic has been a favorite topic of mine since the inception of the licenses. Clark [/QUOTE]

Verification