• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
LAPSI: legal interoperability updated
 

LAPSI: legal interoperability updated

on

  • 468 views

A short presentation about open data licensing models and their interaction.

A short presentation about open data licensing models and their interaction.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
468
Views on SlideShare
467
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slashdocs.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    LAPSI: legal interoperability updated LAPSI: legal interoperability updated Presentation Transcript

    • Ad Hoc Licences, Dominant License Models and (the Lack of) Interoperability federico.morando@gmail.comslides available under a CC0 license/waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
    • Introduction:License Interoperability for Dummies (from an OGDC presentation)
    • legal interoperability in 1 slide● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability
    • legal interoperability in 1 slide● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses
    • legal interoperability in 1 slide● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses problems uncertainty
    • legal interoperability in 1 slide● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses problems uncertainty lawyers
    • legal interoperability in 1 slide● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses problems uncertainty ;-) lawyers
    • Can we say much more?
    • Can we say much more? (Yes, of course!But the policy implicationsdo not change that much.)
    • (Data) License Landscape● (FLOSS Licenses used for data)● Creative Commons Licenses ● standard general purpose CC licenses – BY; (SA); [NC]; {ND} – 3.0 EU licenses (waiving sui generis database right) ● CC0 waiver (with fallback clauses → broad license)● Open Data Commons Licenses ● for (open) data only – PD dedication (with license fallback), BY or SA (first to be produced, targeting communities)● National (open government) data licenses ● UK: OGL (BY +) ● FR: License Ouverte (BY +) ● IT: IODL (beta ver.: BY-SA-NC +; 1.0: BY-SA +; 2.0: BY +) ● ...
    • National licenses & std worries● UK OGL, Italian Open Data License (IODL), etc. ● ensure [or “take all reasonable steps so”] that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any official status... ● ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source... ● ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act...
    • License Ouverte & Privacy Concerns● The French LO adopts an interesting solution about several “standard worries”● section “About the Open Licence” at the end of the document ● description of relevant “facts” (instead of clauses) – Information which contains personal data is not considered to be public sector information re-usable under the terms of French Law – except where persons on which data is collected have agreed to its reuse, where this data has been rendered anonymous by the public sector bodies, or where a legal or statutory provision permits its re-use (in these three cases, re- use is subject to compliance with French privacy protection legislation).
    • Non-Commercial Reminder● (luckily) this is an “endangered clause” in the PSI domain ● yet, the NC debate characterizes the first phases of most re-use initiatives● de facto, the NC licenses are only compatible with other NC licenses● always remind (to your Government) some basic things ● Non-Commercial → no (standard) business models ● NC also → no (open) communities – impossible to re-use for non-profit groups including Wikimedia/Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, etc.● oversimplifying: Non-Commercial → NO Wikipedia
    • Various approaches to interoperability● OGL FAQs ● information can be mixed and re-purposed easily with other licence models requiring attribution in that the terms of the Open Government Licence should not present any barriers● LO ● interoperability clause in the main text● IODL ● 1.0 (SA): interoperability clause in the main text ● 2.0 (BY): OGL-like solution (FAQs)
    • A View on License Complexity● Preliminary attempt ● given the original license – on the lines ● can I use a given standard license for a “derivative” work/DB? – on the columns
    • A View on License Complexity
    • The Problem● You may have different interpretations ● several issues have been oversimplified – including the licensed rights! ● copyright vs. sui generis ● database vs. content (“data”)
    • The Problem● You may have different interpretations ● several issues have been oversimplified – including the licensed rights! ● copyright vs. sui generis ● database vs. content (“data”) This is the best proof of existence of a serious problem!
    • give to © what is ©s● © licenses do not cover non-© aspects ● e.g. privacy, trademarks ● sometimes, thats paradoxical, but...
    • give to © what is ©s● © licenses do not cover non-© aspects ● e.g. privacy, trademarks ● sometimes, thats paradoxical, but...➔ Governments may ensure (©)interoperability if they address non-© worries with other tools ● notices satisfying any taste ✔ privacy notices – various disclaimers ● “dont violate the law” ● “be kind”
    • give to © what is ©s● © licenses do not cover non-© aspects ● e.g. privacy, trademarks ● sometimes, thats paradoxical, but...➔ Governments may ensure (©)interoperability if they address non-© worries with other tools ● notices satisfying any taste ✔ privacy notices – various disclaimers ● “dont violate the law” ● “be kind” ↔ soft law could substitute most stupid license clauses
    • Tentative Conclusion● dont use ©-license to address privacy and similar worries● if you advise Gov. (or work within the Gov.) ● dont produce a custom license ● produce a custom licensing framework – using standard © license ● e.g. New Zealand Government Open Access and Licensing (NZGOAL) framework
    • Conclusion (Hope)● its a learning process● e.g. FLOSS ● ¼ Century to achive (decent) interoperability ● Mike Linksvayer (CC): – FLOSS: discovery concerning what works for field Early confusion on libre vs gratis Early non-commercial licenses, including first release of Linux kernel – Now, people who put first freedom (e.g., Stallman), development (e.g., Torvalds), and profit (corporations) ~agree on what free/open means – Amazing!
    • (for the records)● national sector specific laws – e.g. cultural heritage law ● potentially severe impact on licensing choices – e.g. Non-Commercial or No-Derivatives licenses ● and interoperability consequences