On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> This has now instead become a reasonable recommendation
>> concerning ODC-BY licensing [3] but the confusion and uncertainty
>> about which records an OCLC member may redistribute remains.
>>
>> [3] http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/2012/201248.en.html
>
> Allow me to try to put this confusion and uncertainty to rest once and for
> all:
>
> ALL THE THINGS. ALL.
>
> At least as far as we are concerned. I think it's well past time to put the
> past in the past.

That's great, Roy. That's a *lot* simpler than parsing the
recommendations, WCRR, community norms, and such at [A, B] :)

> Meanwhile, we have just put nearly 200 million works records up as linked
> open data. [1], [2], [3]. If that doesn't rock the library open linked data
> world, then no one is paying attention.
> Roy
>
> [1] http://oclc.org/en-US/news/releases/2014/201414dublin.html
> [2]
> http://dataliberate.com/2014/04/worldcat-works-197-million-nuggets-of-linked-data/
> [3] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=3811

Yes, that is really awesome. But Laura was asking about barriers to
open metadata, so damn you for going off-topic with PR around a lack
of barriers to some metadata (which, for those who have not looked
yet, have a nice ODC-BY licensing statement at the bottom of a given
Works page) :)

A. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use.en.html
B. http://oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/data-licensing/questions.en.html