![]() Such potential for abuse of the “open” label is a major reason we created the open definition - where open content and data is clearly defined as material that anyone is free to use, reuse and redistribute without restriction. To my mind this is clear abuse of the term open and and more than a little exploitative - you do work for them for free and they don’t even promise to give you credit let alone permission to use the material you helped create. You may not redistribute any of the Content of this Web Site without the prior authorisation of Macmillan or create a database in electronic form or manually by downloading and storing any content. … Reproduction of material on this Web Site is prohibited unless express permission is given by Macmillan. Unless otherwise indicated, this Web Site and its contents are the property of Macmillan Publishers Limited, … The copyright in the material contained on this Web Site belongs to Macmillan or its licensors. ![]() Their “open” means letting you give them information for free (by submitting word suggestions) but getting nothing back - as the terms and conditions make quite clear (emphasis added): Unfortunately it looks like Macmillan’s “Open Dictionary” isn’t open - at least not in any way we mean by that term. If you know of any other open dictionary projects – we’d love to hear about them! You can either pop us a line to the okfn-discuss list, or add packages directly to CKAN: We’d like to start using tags to correspond with the ISO 639-2 codes for the representation of names of languages, such as:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |