<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>bbgm - the discussion - Latest Comments in Open science and licensing</title><link>http://mndoci.disqus.com/</link><description>At the interface of science and computing</description><atom:link href="https://mndoci.disqus.com/open_science_and_licensing/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:07:17 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Open science and licensing</title><link>http://mndoci.com/2007/08/11/open-science-and-licensing/#comment-1302140</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It is very complex, which is precisely why CC licensing as is won't work.  I was pretty sure you guys were looking at the problem.  Hopefully there won't be too many tables and you can start combining them at some point.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Will be watching and waiting&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mndoci</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:07:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Open science and licensing</title><link>http://mndoci.com/2007/08/11/open-science-and-licensing/#comment-1302139</link><description>&lt;p&gt;don't you worry ... we here at science commons are in the midst of exploring this very problem :) as you can imagine, it's a much more complex issue than it may seem, hence why we are currently working to gather the right parties around the table (a number of different tables, as well) to explore this. our hope is to have a better insight on this over the next few months / sometime in the fall. stay tuned, and great post, deepak!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">kaythaney</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:29:02 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>