Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4104Re: [baseball-databank] Re: Digest Number 1186

Expand Messages
  • Theodore Turocy
    Apr 11, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all,

      I wanted to separate my reply of last night re: licensing legalities from a distinct issue - but it was late at night already for me, so I had to postpone my other reply until now:


      On 10 Apr 2011, at 15:11, wyerscj wrote:

      > And lemme just ask a question, point-blank. It's in the best interests of everybody if someone releases an updated version of the BDB (or some close substitute) after the 2011, season, right? Looking at the bare minimum someone would need to accomplish this meaningfully, I think the year-end Retrosheet release (which has no licensing restrictions attached, aside from attribution) and some effort spent collecting end-of-season awards and the like would suffice. You'd have a BDB that's no more historically accurate than the current one, but I think one person could satisfy much of the demand for a new BDB over the course of a weekend.
      >
      > Now for the question: Let's say I'm both capable (I think that I am) and willing (I might be) to do this. Is there any benefit, either to me or to the BDB users, if I do this through SABR instead of privately (either on my own or hosting it at Baseball Prospectus)?

      The "value proposition," if you will, of having a SABR-distributed and supported open-licensed dataset, whether a completely new effort or a continuation of baseball-databank, is that all the activities listed above are already being done. There would be no need to have anyone volunteer to do those tasks, which are effectively just reduplicating existing effort; it's all work that I already do as part of my regular workflow.

      The catch, again, is that these economies of scope are completely dependent on SABR being able to license out historical MLB statistics under open license terms, and that is not something that is at this instant at SABR's discretion to be able to do - although it is something, again, that there is active lobbying in support of. Without that ability, one would have to have a Chinese wall and maintain two versions of the data, and that's a level of complexity that would destroy the scope economy.

      At the end of the day, the people who are able to say "yes" to that sort of license aren't on this list, so we can't take that particular discussion further just yet. It's frustrating, but these things do take time - and a lot of the people involved are quite busy with this being the opening weeks of the season.

      Ted
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic