• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Linked Heritage - Legal Interoperability
 

Linked Heritage - Legal Interoperability

on

  • 612 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
612
Views on SlideShare
612
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
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

    Linked Heritage - Legal Interoperability Linked Heritage - Legal Interoperability Presentation Transcript

    • Legal interoperability making open (government) datacompatible with businesses and communities Global Interoperability and Linked Data in Libraries Aula Magna dellUniveristà di Firenze June 18-19, 2012 federico.morando@gmail.com Nexa Center for Internet & Society, Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN ()LAPSI - The European Thematic Network on Legal Aspects of PSI (http://www.lapsi-project.eu/) these slides available under a CC0 license/waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
    • legal interoperabilitypossibility of (legally) mixing data coming fromdifferent sources (e.g. government data, UGC, corporate data)
    • agenda1) © law → open data need “licenses”2) (hence) legal interoperability (is an issue)3) focus on various licenses4) implications 1) (for license stewards) 2) for license users5) conclusion
    • 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” licensesa common problem without a general solution → many different licensing tools
    • (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...
    • 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 friendly” initiatives● de facto, the NC licenses are only compatible with other NC licenses● always remind (to your institution) 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 (DBpedia)
    • 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 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
    • 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!
    • its not just a matter of theoretical compatibilityit doesnt matter if some legal scholars could argue that mixing data may be possible re-users need to clearly understand what they can (or cannot) do
    • 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) – notices satisfying any taste (e.g. privacy notices) – soft law could substitute some stupid disclaimers● if you advise a (public sector) information holder ● dont produce a custom license, but a custom licensing framework – using standard © license (e.g. New Zealand: NZGOAL framework)
    • some implications for license users● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability
    • some implications for license users● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses
    • some implications for license users● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses problems uncertainty
    • some implications for license users● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses problems uncertainty lawyers
    • some implications for license users● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses problems uncertainty ;-) lawyers
    • 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!● in the mid/long run ● legal interoperability could be achieved thorough the evolution of legal frameworks in order to harmonize the landscape of Government Data● in the short term ● you have to adopt a copyright “license” ● Creative Commons Zero (CC0) or similar “public domain” tools are the easiest and more complete “solution” to license interoperability