Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino)

on

  • 672 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
672
Views on SlideShare
672
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

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

Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino) Legal interoperability: glocal perspective (LAPSI, Torino) Presentation Transcript

  • Standardization and LicenseInteroperability: a Glocal Perspective Open Public Sector Information: Time for a New Paradigm Aula Magna dellUniveristà di Torino July 9-10, 2012 federico.morando@gmail.com Nexa Center for Internet & Society, Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN (http://nexa.polito.it)LAPSI - The European Thematic Network on Legal Aspects of PSI (http://www.lapsi-project.eu/) these slides available under a CC0 waiver/license http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
  • foreword as long as a public sector body makes its (relevant) data available online in machine readable format and with a license allowing forcommercial re-use, it has my blessing as an open data activist
  • foreword as long as a public sector body makes its (relevant) data available online in machine readable format and with a license allowing forcommercial re-use, it has my blessing as an open data activist but you can always do better!
  • legal interoperabilitypossibility of (legally) mixing data coming fromdifferent sources (e.g. government data, UGC, corporate data)
  • legal interoperability possibility of (legally) mixing data coming from different sources (e.g. government data, UGC, corporate data)and using them within a broad range of projects and business (and community) models
  • agenda1) why (do we care)?2) © law → open data need “licenses”3) (hence) legal interoperability (is an issue)4) a birds-eye view on license interop.5) best practices and missed opportunities6) conclusion
  • the ultimate goalmix data, re-use them in unexpected ways, be able to experiment and be quick and (legally) certain
  • perceived legal interoperability its not just a matter of theoretical possibilities people (and software developers in particular) need to be sure about legal interoperability without asking their lawyers(and, ideally, without reading too many licenses)
  • perceived legal interoperability its not just a matter of theoretical possibilities people (and software developers in particular) need to be sure about legal interoperability without asking their lawyers(and, ideally, without reading too many licenses)(and, ideally, almost without reading any license,because search engines and pieces of software can assist them)
  • we dont want people to read many licenses, so... is no-license a good license?
  • the legal background“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved (“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit dauteur & including sui generis database right, etc.)
  • the legal background “copyright” default rule = all rights reserved (“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit dauteur & including sui generis database right, etc.)(without a clear statement → locked data or legal uncertainty)
  • the legal background “copyright” default rule = all rights reserved (“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit dauteur & including sui generis database right, etc.)(without a clear statement → locked data or legal uncertainty) open data → open “license” (including dedications, waivers or notices e.g. CC0 or the PublicDomainMark)
  • so, to avoid prohibitive transaction costs,we have to deal with “copyright” “licenses”
  • so, to avoid prohibitive transaction costs, we have to deal with “copyright” “licenses” “copyright” = copyright-like rights“license” = statements/notices with legal meaning
  • the Commission continues to argue that no- license is a potentially good option theoretically, it may be the case (in certaincountries or for certain PSB), but we want a clearperception of perfect legal interoperability, so this is not helpingif you want to go this way, do as the US did with Federal PSI: put it in the public domain by law!
  • (data) licensing 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) used by/ ● ● CC0 waiver (with fallback clauses → broad license) Public Domain Mark (notice of PD status) { developed with Europeana● 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 +) ● ...
  • the “+”s: national licenses & standard 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...
  • a view on license interoperability 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
  • zooming onlicense interoperability complexity
  • universal donors
  • universal donors
  • universal donors● Creative Commons Zero (CC0)● Public Domain Dedication or License (PDDL)● tagging of public domain content with the PDMark
  • do we have universal receivers?● strictly speaking, no ● (rectius: keeping the data within you firms secret datacenter)● amongst open licenses, CC BY-SA is the best candidate ● could safely be used to publish derivative works of any Public Domain or Attribution waiver/license ● considering the amount of available data is the first candidate for any “interoperability clause” in other SA licenses – GNU FDL (temporary) interop.; IODL 1.0
  • 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 best practice● New Zealand Government Open Access and Licensing (NZGOAL) framework ● “NZGOAL seeks to standardise the licensing of government copyright works for re-use using Creative Commons [Attribution] New Zealand law licences and recommends the use of ‘no-known rights’ statements for non-copyright material.”
  • another best practice● the French LO adopts an interesting solution about several national “standard worries”● section “About the Open Licence” at the end of the document ● description of relevant “facts” (instead of clauses) – that “re-use is subject to compliance with French privacy protection legislation” is one of these facts● this would be a perfect solution, if only the list of facts was clearly outside of the copyright license (and withing a broader framework)
  • some implications for license stewards● beware of license vanity● work to merge share-alike licenses (or make them compatible) ● dont create new ones!● you may facilitate (©)interoperability if you address non-© worries with other tools ● standard © licenses do not cover non-© aspects (e.g. privacy, publicity, trademarks, cultural heritage protection laws) – notices or non-© licenses satisfying any taste (e.g. privacy notices) – soft law could substitute several disclaimers● if you advise a (public sector) information holder ● dont produce a custom license, but a custom licensing framework – one page making reference to a standard © license (e.g. reproducing the CC Commons Deed) my be enough
  • to be surethose who really want to create their own “local” copyright license, should at least make sure to use a simple “attribution” license, with a “reasonable attribution” clause avoiding the “stacking” issue
  • missed opportunities● the internal market is witnessing more and more Member States creating their own national license ● (small) attrition in the re-use mechanism● the UK led by example (in the wrong direction?) ● by accident, since they wanted to use CC licenses, but they did not find an answer for some “European” needs (e.g. licensing the sui generis database right)
  • conclusion (open opportunities)● its a learning process and we already learned quite a lot ● this is why I did not talk again about Non-Commercial clauses...● the 4.0 version of CC licenses will address the issues that led to the non-adoption by the UK government ● non-copyright issues are not addressed in CC licenses ● a “licensing framework” clarifying privacy and other non-copyright concerns may be appropriate – without breaking (copyright) license interoperability● the Commission may draft a European licensing framework, customizable at the local level (even by municipalities), but adopting the most standard and widespread copyright licenses (or waivers or notices/marks)