patch0 writes: The University of East Anglia has just received funding from the Joint Information Systems Committee in the UK to open up it's data to the public, this project will involve linking climate data held by the CRU to publications and making the data available for re-use by others. Link to Original Source
patch0 writes: I work for a small scientific charity, we publish various things, journals, identification keys etc. We've also got an image archive dating back to 1910 which we're trying to digitise. Here's the problem. We have various software solutions for making our images available online (at present we use gallery 2), these need to be watermarked and record IPR for individuals who own various images. We also want people to be able to easily add their images, so far so good. But we also have many images sitting on our servers taking up space, this is because there is a lot of duplication of images from our publishing work. Some people will take an image, mess with it for a particular publication and then we end up with multiple copies in a variety of places, we can't use our online gallery software to manage photos on our servers that are used in our publishing activities. Does anyone on slashdot know of any joined up software solution that will play nicely with Adobe InDesign and act as a web gallery (where we can sell images) and also allow people on the web to contribute photos easily?
patch0 writes: As a web developer I usually have to contend with the issues related to IE6 and the development effort that has to go into fixing its eccentricities. But what I want to know is when can I stop caring about it? IE7 is two years old, IE6 is almost eight years old, and yet it still has a percentage of the market almost as big as FF according to some recent stats I found. Does anyone have any accurate info on the market share IE6 still has? If so, any opinions on the magic number where I can ignore it? 10%? 25% market share? What?
patch0 writes: "The US federal appeals court overturned a lower court decision involving free software used in model trains that a hobbyist put online. Robert Jacobsen had written and then released code under an Artistic Licence. This meant anyone using that free code had to attribute the author, highlight the original source of the files and explain how the code had been modified. Commercial software developer Matthew Katzer and his company were accused of ignoring the terms of the Artistic Licence when they took his code and used it to develop commercial software products." Link to Original Source