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

Re: [baseball-databank] Re: The Future

Expand Messages
  • F. X. Flinn
    Derek, I never heard of any committee having any kind of NDA agreement, and I ve been on the board since July 2001. The lack of accessibility of the data was a
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 30, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Derek, I never heard of any committee having any kind of NDA agreement, and I've been on the board since July 2001. The lack of accessibility of the data was a problem we first tried to address by contracting with XMLTeam to build out a system that would make the data truly useful to a larger audience without dba skills, but that didn't work out. Meanwhile bbref had become the defacto place to go, so we felt less compelled to compete with them or with BDB.

      Bottom line is that SABR could start producing BDB type products tied to a creative commons license in fairly short order, and it's definitely something we have in the hopper once the dust settles on the new move, new staff, new website that's all rolling out as this discussion takes place. If we just went ahead and did that, would all be forgiven?

      FXF

      On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Derek Adair <dadair@...> wrote:
       

      Gang,

      I have been rather quiet in this community for a long time for personal
      reasons, but this issue is something I feel very strongly about. Plus this
      thread is full of throw-back names, so I had to chime in :-)

      Over the years, I have been involved in a number of efforts, and witnessed
      several more where grass roots labor built up some store of data or a
      product of value, and then that data or project got rerouted to something
      commercial and/or closed to the public. Two obvious examples that come to
      mind are CDDB (a store of compact disc information) and ICS (Internet
      Chess Server). I don't want that to happen to this data, and I don't think
      it has to.

      One of the reasons for the success of this databank is its resilience. The
      data source has had multiple shepherds over the years, but once it went
      public, it hasn't looked back. Strides towards more inclusive formats have
      been the norm, and each of us can currently download the entire dataset to
      munge to our heart's content. Each new shepherd (usually named Sean) added
      a layer of support for the data, and it fleshed out over time to what it
      is today.

      There's absolutely further work that could be done with the data. Each
      spring, grand plans and ideas are raised and some take fruit while others
      die off. That's fine and good and natural. But it all comes back to the
      data being available to all of us.

      A disclaimer is necessary. I am not a fan of SABR, primarily because of
      the way it has handled its data. The SABR I am familiar with (five plus
      years ago when I was a member) had closed committees with NDA's, datasets
      only viewable record by record on the web, and the exact opposite of the
      spirit this group has had.

      True, that was a long while ago. The fact that SABR has a "data czar" with
      the approach that Ted has goes a long way. They have done some great work
      releasing data sets. But still, with the history there, I can't help but
      feel like handing over the proverbial keys to the data, including the
      ability to determine licensing back to us, is a scary step in the wrong
      direction. "We" own this data now. I can download the data set and munge
      away. None of us can say for sure that we will be able to do that in two
      years if we give that away. If we take that risk, the gain must be
      overwhelmingly worth it. I personally don't see it.

      I understand this may be a bit of a doom-and-gloom view of where we're
      going, but as I mentioned, my viewpoint is one of someone who has seen
      their contributions to CDDB turn write-only. The impact here would be
      worse, because of the reporting and research use for the data we have
      collected over the years.

      Regards,
      Derek



      On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Theodore Turocy wrote:

      >
      > On 30 Mar 2011, at 19:50 , Sean Forman wrote:
      >
      >> What I hope will happen is that SABR and Palmer/Gillette will make a non-commercial open sourced version of the major league and bio data (which I currently license from them for use on B-R (I don't use core bdb data on b-r. I maintain it separately)) available to the general public. I will gladly pay my fee to them and gladly point the hobbyist or enthusiast to the full data they can use for free.
      >>
      >> I have been trying to put this bug in their ear for many years now. I'm only a lowly SABR member and have no pull beyond my bully pulpit and relationship as a customer of theirs.
      >>
      >> My personal view (and the view of probably anyone who knows anything about this) is that the Palmer DB is the gold standard for the encyclopedia numbers and the SABR bio committee is the gold standard for bio. I would urge Palmer and SABR to make the db open source for non-commercial use, and provide a way for the community to create new datasets with this as a platform instead of continually having to stamp out LF-CF-RF discrepancies or update death dates.
      >
      >
      > I'm not sure how widely it's known, but for several years now I have been serving as SABR's "dataczar, with remit to manage all the various datasets SABR has or licenses.
      >
      > My personal position on the matter matches Sean F.'s. SABR ought to be releasing datasets under, e.g., a Creative Commons license, and ought to be providing resources to maintain datasets for the benefit of the community as a whole.
      >
      > In addition to sharing Sean's assessment about the quality of the SABR demographics and the Palmer/Gillette MLB statistics, a further argument for SABR being involved is logistical. I already maintain the equivalent of basically all of baseball-databank's data - plus significantly more - on a day-to-day basis, as part of a regularized workflow, with tools I've developed over several years of experience. To output the data in the format of baseball-databank or similar, would take maybe two hours to write and test the queries as a one-off. In other words, the ongoing cost of me managing this data would be essentially zero.
      >
      > Where I have been able to, SABR has already started making datasets available under a CC license, for instance, as part of the Baseball ID Working Group.
      >
      > The only thing stopping me from volunteering to take on providing the baseball-databank under the same terms straightaway is that the MLB statistics, which are no doubt the core of the dataset, aren't currently mine to release. I firmly support Open Source and Open Data principles. It is worth remembering that one of those underlying principles is respect for copyright and licensing terms.
      >
      > I am actively working to try to make what Sean F. is proposing a reality. Those of you in the group who are SABR members, I encourage you to write your Board members and tell them the same. :) The baseball community really needs to be spending its time on doing analysis and discovering new information -- not the grunge work of putting together clean datasets.
      >
      > Ted
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > http://www.baseball-databank.org/Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >



      --
      F. X. Flinn
      FXFlinn@gmail | 802-369-0069

    • Theodore Turocy
      ... To move the discussion forward: How would having the data licensed under a Creative Commons license not address this concern -- remembering that licenses
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 30, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On 30 Mar 2011, at 23:21 , Derek Adair wrote:

        >
        >
        > True, that was a long while ago. The fact that SABR has a "data czar" with
        > the approach that Ted has goes a long way. They have done some great work
        > releasing data sets. But still, with the history there, I can't help but
        > feel like handing over the proverbial keys to the data, including the
        > ability to determine licensing back to us, is a scary step in the wrong
        > direction.

        To move the discussion forward: How would having the data licensed under a Creative Commons license not address this concern -- remembering that licenses cannot be retroactively changed.

        TLT
      • Derek Adair
        FX, Well, it s obviously not my call to forgive SABR. The good thing is you can go ahead and release those BDB-like products anyway (at least to my
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 30, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          FX,

          Well, it's obviously not my call to forgive SABR. The good thing is you
          can go ahead and release those BDB-like products anyway (at least to my
          understanding; I-Am-Not-a-Lawyer). There are multiple ways to do what you
          said successfully, and there are a number of ways you can botch it. There
          are a half-dozen variants of the creative commons license, and there are
          varying kinds of "products" you could provide back. There's also the open
          question of whether this data would be hosted just for SABR members, or
          for everyone. I am honestly hoping for your efforts here to be successful,
          but that's in your organization's hands.

          For what it's worth (not much), I would recommend you not get too hung up
          on meeting the needs of those missing dba skills, and stick with making
          the data available as the first pass. Zipped csv/xls file storage is much
          less expensive and much quicker to market than an ambitious contract
          project.

          My advice to the current crop of databank contributors is to be open about
          contributing but guarded about risk. If something does go wrong, and the
          new maintainer takes it closed, being able to roll back and only do a year
          of updates, vs. catch up from this point in time is critical. I'd like to
          avoid a fork, but we owe it to current and future consumers of the data to
          ensure the set is available to the masses.

          Regards,
          Derek

          P.S. On the note re: NDA's, the committee in question was the Negro
          Leagues committee. In order to access their data, you were asked to sign
          an NDA because they were working on a book at the time. I can't remember
          exact dates, but it could have been earlier than your board service.

          On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, F. X. Flinn wrote:

          > Derek, I never heard of any committee having any kind of NDA agreement, and
          > I've been on the board since July 2001. The lack of accessibility of the
          > data was a problem we first tried to address by contracting with XMLTeam to
          > build out a system that would make the data truly useful to a larger
          > audience without dba skills, but that didn't work out. Meanwhile bbref had
          > become the defacto place to go, so we felt less compelled to compete with
          > them or with BDB.
          >
          > Bottom line is that SABR could start producing BDB type products tied to a
          > creative commons license in fairly short order, and it's definitely
          > something we have in the hopper once the dust settles on the new move, new
          > staff, new website that's all rolling out as this discussion takes place. If
          > we just went ahead and did that, would all be forgiven?
          >
          > FXF
          >
          > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Derek Adair <dadair@...> wrote:
          >
          >>
          >>
          >> Gang,
          >>
          >> I have been rather quiet in this community for a long time for personal
          >> reasons, but this issue is something I feel very strongly about. Plus this
          >> thread is full of throw-back names, so I had to chime in :-)
          >>
          >> Over the years, I have been involved in a number of efforts, and witnessed
          >> several more where grass roots labor built up some store of data or a
          >> product of value, and then that data or project got rerouted to something
          >> commercial and/or closed to the public. Two obvious examples that come to
          >> mind are CDDB (a store of compact disc information) and ICS (Internet
          >> Chess Server). I don't want that to happen to this data, and I don't think
          >> it has to.
          >>
          >> One of the reasons for the success of this databank is its resilience. The
          >> data source has had multiple shepherds over the years, but once it went
          >> public, it hasn't looked back. Strides towards more inclusive formats have
          >> been the norm, and each of us can currently download the entire dataset to
          >> munge to our heart's content. Each new shepherd (usually named Sean) added
          >> a layer of support for the data, and it fleshed out over time to what it
          >> is today.
          >>
          >> There's absolutely further work that could be done with the data. Each
          >> spring, grand plans and ideas are raised and some take fruit while others
          >> die off. That's fine and good and natural. But it all comes back to the
          >> data being available to all of us.
          >>
          >> A disclaimer is necessary. I am not a fan of SABR, primarily because of
          >> the way it has handled its data. The SABR I am familiar with (five plus
          >> years ago when I was a member) had closed committees with NDA's, datasets
          >> only viewable record by record on the web, and the exact opposite of the
          >> spirit this group has had.
          >>
          >> True, that was a long while ago. The fact that SABR has a "data czar" with
          >> the approach that Ted has goes a long way. They have done some great work
          >> releasing data sets. But still, with the history there, I can't help but
          >> feel like handing over the proverbial keys to the data, including the
          >> ability to determine licensing back to us, is a scary step in the wrong
          >> direction. "We" own this data now. I can download the data set and munge
          >> away. None of us can say for sure that we will be able to do that in two
          >> years if we give that away. If we take that risk, the gain must be
          >> overwhelmingly worth it. I personally don't see it.
          >>
          >> I understand this may be a bit of a doom-and-gloom view of where we're
          >> going, but as I mentioned, my viewpoint is one of someone who has seen
          >> their contributions to CDDB turn write-only. The impact here would be
          >> worse, because of the reporting and research use for the data we have
          >> collected over the years.
          >>
          >> Regards,
          >> Derek
          >>
          >>
          >> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Theodore Turocy wrote:
          >>
          >>>
          >>> On 30 Mar 2011, at 19:50 , Sean Forman wrote:
          >>>
          >>>> What I hope will happen is that SABR and Palmer/Gillette will make a
          >> non-commercial open sourced version of the major league and bio data (which
          >> I currently license from them for use on B-R (I don't use core bdb data on
          >> b-r. I maintain it separately)) available to the general public. I will
          >> gladly pay my fee to them and gladly point the hobbyist or enthusiast to the
          >> full data they can use for free.
          >>>>
          >>>> I have been trying to put this bug in their ear for many years now. I'm
          >> only a lowly SABR member and have no pull beyond my bully pulpit and
          >> relationship as a customer of theirs.
          >>>>
          >>>> My personal view (and the view of probably anyone who knows anything
          >> about this) is that the Palmer DB is the gold standard for the encyclopedia
          >> numbers and the SABR bio committee is the gold standard for bio. I would
          >> urge Palmer and SABR to make the db open source for non-commercial use, and
          >> provide a way for the community to create new datasets with this as a
          >> platform instead of continually having to stamp out LF-CF-RF discrepancies
          >> or update death dates.
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> I'm not sure how widely it's known, but for several years now I have been
          >> serving as SABR's "dataczar, with remit to manage all the various datasets
          >> SABR has or licenses.
          >>>
          >>> My personal position on the matter matches Sean F.'s. SABR ought to be
          >> releasing datasets under, e.g., a Creative Commons license, and ought to be
          >> providing resources to maintain datasets for the benefit of the community as
          >> a whole.
          >>>
          >>> In addition to sharing Sean's assessment about the quality of the SABR
          >> demographics and the Palmer/Gillette MLB statistics, a further argument for
          >> SABR being involved is logistical. I already maintain the equivalent of
          >> basically all of baseball-databank's data - plus significantly more - on a
          >> day-to-day basis, as part of a regularized workflow, with tools I've
          >> developed over several years of experience. To output the data in the format
          >> of baseball-databank or similar, would take maybe two hours to write and
          >> test the queries as a one-off. In other words, the ongoing cost of me
          >> managing this data would be essentially zero.
          >>>
          >>> Where I have been able to, SABR has already started making datasets
          >> available under a CC license, for instance, as part of the Baseball ID
          >> Working Group.
          >>>
          >>> The only thing stopping me from volunteering to take on providing the
          >> baseball-databank under the same terms straightaway is that the MLB
          >> statistics, which are no doubt the core of the dataset, aren't currently
          >> mine to release. I firmly support Open Source and Open Data principles. It
          >> is worth remembering that one of those underlying principles is respect for
          >> copyright and licensing terms.
          >>>
          >>> I am actively working to try to make what Sean F. is proposing a reality.
          >> Those of you in the group who are SABR members, I encourage you to write
          >> your Board members and tell them the same. :) The baseball community really
          >> needs to be spending its time on doing analysis and discovering new
          >> information -- not the grunge work of putting together clean datasets.
          >>>
          >>> Ted
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> ------------------------------------
          >>>
          >>> http://www.baseball-databank.org/Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          > --
          > F. X. Flinn
          > FXFlinn@gmail | 802-369-0069
          >
        • Jeff Zimmerman
          I feel the data should be available with absolutely no restrictions on the data. I am not a lawyer and others aren t either. I am just a baseball fan and
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 30, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            I feel the data should be available with absolutely no restrictions on the data.  I am not a lawyer and others aren't either.  I am just a baseball fan and just want to use the data.  I don't want to have to find out if I can/can't use any/all of the data in anything I do that may/may not make a dollar.  I would just like to know what the Royals winning percentage was from 1986 to current and be able to post in an article and not worry if the any laws were/weren't broken.  No restrictions, no worries.  

            Jeff Zimmerman




            To: baseball-databank@yahoogroups.com
            From: dadair@...
            Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 19:47:51 -0400
            Subject: Re: [baseball-databank] Re: The Future

             
            FX,

            Well, it's obviously not my call to forgive SABR. The good thing is you
            can go ahead and release those BDB-like products anyway (at least to my
            understanding; I-Am-Not-a-Lawyer). There are multiple ways to do what you
            said successfully, and there are a number of ways you can botch it. There
            are a half-dozen variants of the creative commons license, and there are
            varying kinds of "products" you could provide back. There's also the open
            question of whether this data would be hosted just for SABR members, or
            for everyone. I am honestly hoping for your efforts here to be successful,
            but that's in your organization's hands.

            For what it's worth (not much), I would recommend you not get too hung up
            on meeting the needs of those missing dba skills, and stick with making
            the data available as the first pass. Zipped csv/xls file storage is much
            less expensive and much quicker to market than an ambitious contract
            project.

            My advice to the current crop of databank contributors is to be open about
            contributing but guarded about risk. If something does go wrong, and the
            new maintainer takes it closed, being able to roll back and only do a year
            of updates, vs. catch up from this point in time is critical. I'd like to
            avoid a fork, but we owe it to current and future consumers of the data to
            ensure the set is available to the masses.

            Regards,
            Derek

            P.S. On the note re: NDA's, the committee in question was the Negro
            Leagues committee. In order to access their data, you were asked to sign
            an NDA because they were working on a book at the time. I can't remember
            exact dates, but it could have been earlier than your board service.

            On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, F. X. Flinn wrote:

            > Derek, I never heard of any committee having any kind of NDA agreement, and
            > I've been on the board since July 2001. The lack of accessibility of the
            > data was a problem we first tried to address by contracting with XMLTeam to
            > build out a system that would make the data truly useful to a larger
            > audience without dba skills, but that didn't work out. Meanwhile bbref had
            > become the defacto place to go, so we felt less compelled to compete with
            > them or with BDB.
            >
            > Bottom line is that SABR could start producing BDB type products tied to a
            > creative commons license in fairly short order, and it's definitely
            > something we have in the hopper once the dust settles on the new move, new
            > staff, new website that's all rolling out as this discussion takes place. If
            > we just went ahead and did that, would all be forgiven?
            >
            > FXF
            >
            > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Derek Adair <dadair@...> wrote:
            >
            >>
            >>
            >> Gang,
            >>
            >> I have been rather quiet in this community for a long time for personal
            >> reasons, but this issue is something I feel very strongly about. Plus this
            >> thread is full of throw-back names, so I had to chime in :-)
            >>
            >> Over the years, I have been involved in a number of efforts, and witnessed
            >> several more where grass roots labor built up some store of data or a
            >> product of value, and then that data or project got rerouted to something
            >> commercial and/or closed to the public. Two obvious examples that come to
            >> mind are CDDB (a store of compact disc information) and ICS (Internet
            >> Chess Server). I don't want that to happen to this data, and I don't think
            >> it has to.
            >>
            >> One of the reasons for the success of this databank is its resilience. The
            >> data source has had multiple shepherds over the years, but once it went
            >> public, it hasn't looked back. Strides towards more inclusive formats have
            >> been the norm, and each of us can currently download the entire dataset to
            >> munge to our heart's content. Each new shepherd (usually named Sean) added
            >> a layer of support for the data, and it fleshed out over time to what it
            >> is today.
            >>
            >> There's absolutely further work that could be done with the data. Each
            >> spring, grand plans and ideas are raised and some take fruit while others
            >> die off. That's fine and good and natural. But it all comes back to the
            >> data being available to all of us.
            >>
            >> A disclaimer is necessary. I am not a fan of SABR, primarily because of
            >> the way it has handled its data. The SABR I am familiar with (five plus
            >> years ago when I was a member) had closed committees with NDA's, datasets
            >> only viewable record by record on the web, and the exact opposite of the
            >> spirit this group has had.
            >>
            >> True, that was a long while ago. The fact that SABR has a "data czar" with
            >> the approach that Ted has goes a long way. They have done some great work
            >> releasing data sets. But still, with the history there, I can't help but
            >> feel like handing over the proverbial keys to the data, including the
            >> ability to determine licensing back to us, is a scary step in the wrong
            >> direction. "We" own this data now. I can download the data set and munge
            >> away. None of us can say for sure that we will be able to do that in two
            >> years if we give that away. If we take that risk, the gain must be
            >> overwhelmingly worth it. I personally don't see it.
            >>
            >> I understand this may be a bit of a doom-and-gloom view of where we're
            >> going, but as I mentioned, my viewpoint is one of someone who has seen
            >> their contributions to CDDB turn write-only. The impact here would be
            >> worse, because of the reporting and research use for the data we have
            >> collected over the years.
            >>
            >> Regards,
            >> Derek
            >>
            >>
            >> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Theodore Turocy wrote:
            >>
            >>>
            >>> On 30 Mar 2011, at 19:50 , Sean Forman wrote:
            >>>
            >>>> What I hope will happen is that SABR and Palmer/Gillette will make a
            >> non-commercial open sourced version of the major league and bio data (which
            >> I currently license from them for use on B-R (I don't use core bdb data on
            >> b-r. I maintain it separately)) available to the general public. I will
            >> gladly pay my fee to them and gladly point the hobbyist or enthusiast to the
            >> full data they can use for free.
            >>>>
            >>>> I have been trying to put this bug in their ear for many years now. I'm
            >> only a lowly SABR member and have no pull beyond my bully pulpit and
            >> relationship as a customer of theirs.
            >>>>
            >>>> My personal view (and the view of probably anyone who knows anything
            >> about this) is that the Palmer DB is the gold standard for the encyclopedia
            >> numbers and the SABR bio committee is the gold standard for bio. I would
            >> urge Palmer and SABR to make the db open source for non-commercial use, and
            >> provide a way for the community to create new datasets with this as a
            >> platform instead of continually having to stamp out LF-CF-RF discrepancies
            >> or update death dates.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> I'm not sure how widely it's known, but for several years now I have been
            >> serving as SABR's "dataczar, with remit to manage all the various datasets
            >> SABR has or licenses.
            >>>
            >>> My personal position on the matter matches Sean F.'s. SABR ought to be
            >> releasing datasets under, e.g., a Creative Commons license, and ought to be
            >> providing resources to maintain datasets for the benefit of the community as
            >> a whole.
            >>>
            >>> In addition to sharing Sean's assessment about the quality of the SABR
            >> demographics and the Palmer/Gillette MLB statistics, a further argument for
            >> SABR being involved is logistical. I already maintain the equivalent of
            >> basically all of baseball-databank's data - plus significantly more - on a
            >> day-to-day basis, as part of a regularized workflow, with tools I've
            >> developed over several years of experience. To output the data in the format
            >> of baseball-databank or similar, would take maybe two hours to write and
            >> test the queries as a one-off. In other words, the ongoing cost of me
            >> managing this data would be essentially zero.
            >>>
            >>> Where I have been able to, SABR has already started making datasets
            >> available under a CC license, for instance, as part of the Baseball ID
            >> Working Group.
            >>>
            >>> The only thing stopping me from volunteering to take on providing the
            >> baseball-databank under the same terms straightaway is that the MLB
            >> statistics, which are no doubt the core of the dataset, aren't currently
            >> mine to release. I firmly support Open Source and Open Data principles. It
            >> is worth remembering that one of those underlying principles is respect for
            >> copyright and licensing terms.
            >>>
            >>> I am actively working to try to make what Sean F. is proposing a reality.
            >> Those of you in the group who are SABR members, I encourage you to write
            >> your Board members and tell them the same. :) The baseball community really
            >> needs to be spending its time on doing analysis and discovering new
            >> information -- not the grunge work of putting together clean datasets.
            >>>
            >>> Ted
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> ------------------------------------
            >>>
            >>> http://www.baseball-databank.org/Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            > --
            > F. X. Flinn
            > FXFlinn@gmail | 802-369-0069
            >

          • Sean Forman
            I think people are talking about two different things here and probably with no real need. 1) Can a group of BDB stalwarts (or non-stalwarts) or multiple
            Message 5 of 16 , Mar 31, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I think people are talking about two different things here and probably with no real need.

              1) Can a group of BDB stalwarts (or non-stalwarts) or multiple independent groups take what has been released so far (which is inferior to the sabr/palmer dataset) and maintain and update new databases and allow people to use it for whatever purpose they see fit?

              The answer to that is yes on all accounts.  SABR can release whatever they want and non-sabr entities can release whatever they want.  There is no license posted for any of the data I produced, so it's out there in the wild for everyone to use.  It people want to produce the Tango-Lahman-Adair db or the Tango DB, the Lahman DB, and Adair DB, there is nothing stopping them.

              2) Can and should SABR release a database that in effect serves as a replacement for the BDB? 
                 And can they put a licensing agreement on it that allows unlimited personal use and limited commercial use?  

              The answer to both of those is yes, they can do that, and they don't really need anybody here or anywhere else to be on board or give them permission.  They should just do it if they want to.  And like I said the BDB data is in the wild, so if they want something just take it and use it like anybody else would.

              So IMO, it's nice of FX and Ted to stop in and say, "We may have a solution for future releases, so don't be too worried." and is probably good marketing, but there is no need for them to co-opt or bring on board BDB listserv members or incorporate previous BDB work or ethos.

              SABR can have their discussion and this yahoo group (which is all it really is) can have its discussion, but at the end of the day whoever ships bits is going to have people using their data.  And everyone in this discussion is free to do whatever they want in terms of shipping bits.

              sean
              ---
              Sean Forman
              Sports Reference LLC, President
              http://www.sports-reference.com/

            • mwe55innc@gmail.com
              On Mar 31, 2011 8:57am, Sean Forman wrote: (snip) ... I don t normally do this, but... Well said. Mike Emeigh MWE55inNC@gmail.com
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 31, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mar 31, 2011 8:57am, Sean Forman wrote:
                (snip)
                >
                > SABR can have their discussion and this yahoo group (which is all it really is) can have its discussion, but at the end of the day whoever ships bits is going to have people using their data.  And everyone in this discussion is free to do whatever they want in terms of shipping bits.

                I don't normally do this, but...

                Well said.

                Mike Emeigh
                MWE55inNC@...
              • Tangotiger
                ... I d actually be quite happy if SABR did do something and said exactly that, and then published it for the general public with a non-commercial license.
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 31, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I'd rather see SABR do something with you
                  > than
                  > suddenly show up online one day saying "hey, guys, here's BDB+" without
                  > any
                  > prior attempt to bring you aboard.
                  >

                  I'd actually be quite happy if SABR did do something and said exactly
                  that, and then published it for the general public with a non-commercial
                  license.

                  Preceding that, SABR could just as well do the same thing with its bio
                  data, its minor league data, and its HR data. Let SABR have the reins,
                  and then publish for the general public with the constraint of a
                  non-commercial license.

                  As for providing a commercial license, SABR can solicit micropayments like
                  here:
                  http://www.donorschoose.org/fallon-colbert-project

                  And once enough people contribute (whatever SABR decides... 1000$, 2000$,
                  5000$), then a commercial license has been provided.

                  Tom
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.