This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License.
Via WordPrefect back in 1997.
I took this screenshot back on January 27, 1999 while spellchecking a document in WordPerfect.
The latest on OCLC’s Connexion Client support fro x64 platforms. (emphasis added)
From: AUTOCAT [mailto:AUTOCAT@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Whitehair,David
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 5:25 PM
Subject: [ACAT] Connexion client, new release, 64 bit support
Hi everyone. Sorry for the duplication, but since this topic has come up a few times, I thought I’d send this to a few lists. OCLC is pleased to let you know that we will be releasing a new version of the Windows-based Connexion client sometime over the next year. We don’t have the schedule worked out yet, but since several of you have asked about, we did want to go ahead and let you know that one has been scheduled.
We do expect the next release to be compatible with 64 bit versions of Windows. We know that this is important to many of you.
We will supply more details in the coming months. We haven’t yet worked out all of the changes, the schedule, etc., but we will keep you informed.
FYI: OCLC’s current “solution” for running Connexion Client on a x64 system is to install a x32 system in a virtual machine. (This is something I’ve actually done; blog post forthcoming.)
Last week Stephen Abram posted these info-graphics about libraries from OCLC:
As Stephen said, “we big”. These numbers are wonderful and impressive. But please, don’t show them as is to your patrons.
Take off your librarian hat and be a patron for a moment. What is a “transaction” in a library? One book checked out? One person checking out several items at once? Is asking where the bathroom is a transaction? Honestly, I’m not sure I know the answer. Never mind the difference between a “transaction” and a “back-office transaction”.
What’s an OPAC? Isn’t an OPAC a database? Are those “Database searches” included in the number of “OPAC searches” or are they separate?
Maybe we as librarians know what all this means (and I’m not even sure we can with these numbers being posted out of context,) but just a bunch of large numbers won’t do you any good unless those reading the numbers actually understand them.
Almost every time I hear someone from OCLC speak in defense on their forthcoming Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records they mention Creative Commons. Granted they insist that CC was something that "inspired" their license but they keep repeating the the new OCLC license is very similar to a CC BY-NC-SA license. On it’s face, this is true, but something has been bugging me about this comparison. Yesterday I thought I’d finally figured out what my problem was. Today this line of thought hasn’t changed so I share it with you now.
Let’s say I create something, a photo for example, and assign a CC BY-NC-SA license, that means that others are free to use my photo as long as they attribute me as the creator, use it non-commercially, and pass my license along on whatever they create using my photo. So far, so good. What this CC license does not allow me to do is to control how my photo is used beyond those three items. As long as they are following those three items, I do not have the right to say that I approve of a certain use and not approve of a different use. This is the right I am waiving by using this, or pretty much any other, CC license.
In fact, at least one of my photos has been used in a way that I wouldn’t necessarily have approved of. You can read the story in a post of mine from 7 November 2006 if you’re interested in the details. Basically, a photo of mine was used to illustrate a point that I completely disagreed with and was the opposite of the point I was trying to make by taking the photo in the first place. This is the risk I take by using a CC license and I have to live with that if I want people to use my work via this method.
OCLC on the other hand wants it both ways. They want to use a license that sounds a lot similar to CC BY-NC-SA but then adds the following:
4. Reasonable Use. Use must not discourage the contribution of bibliographic and holdings data to WorldCat or substantially replicate the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat.
So, what OCLC is saying is that you’re welcome to use "their" records (I’m not going to debate here wether these records are theirs or not, that’s a different discussion) as long as you attribute the source, use it non-commercially, pass the license along, and with their approval of your use.
That, my friends, is my problem with them mentioning CC in their defense of the new license. It’s a slap in the face of Creative Commons.
After thinking about this some more I add the further thought. The new license is more like CC BY-NC-ND. In other words they’re by default, not allowing derivative works. Please OCLC, if you’re going to continue to associate your new license with CC, then associate it with the correct CC license.