Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Towards License Interoperability:Patterns of Sustainable Workshop: Removing theroadblocks to a pan European marketfor Public Sector Information re-use Mike Linksvayer 2011-05-11 / Brussels 1
  2. 2. Withoutinteroperabilityre-use is astruggle#!€? · CC0 2
  3. 3. · CC0With interoperability re-use is open to the curious citizen. 3
  4. 4. FLOSS: 25+ years towardinteroperability 4
  5. 5. FLOSS: discovery concerning whatworks for fieldEarly confusion on libre vs gratisEarly non-commercial licenses,including first release of LinuxkernelNow, people who put first freedom(e.g., Stallman), development (e.g.,Torvalds), and profit (corporations)~agree on what free/open means:Amazing! 5
  6. 6. FLOSS: making legal interoperabilityrealityEarly proliferation of licenses,many vanity, much incompatibilityGPL long dominant license; mostlicenses unused; other importantlicenses GPL-compatible after mucheffort (e.g., Apache2, forthcomingMPL2) 6
  7. 7. FLOSS: deepening expertise,community, public sector involvementWell of legal and policy knowledgeconcerning FLOSSFSF in unique position as GPLsteward, but small part of ecosystemActivists, analysts, communities,corporations, developers,governments, NGOs, platforms 7
  8. 8. FLOSS: ongoingPatents, network services, projectgovernance, contributor agreements,public license compliance,regulatory, procurement, funderpolicy, software mixing with non-software, etc.Many challenges, but significantcapacity to meet them: sustainablesharing 8
  9. 9. Open content: 10+ years towardinteroperability 9
  10. 10. Open content: what works for field?Similar to FLOSS (see Definition of FreeCultural Works, Open Knowledge Definition)for building a commons, though noteveryone realizes this yet.Legalizing non-commercial only, verbatimsharing still socially valuable relative todefault (attacks on Internet largely concernthis), but distinct from open. 10
  11. 11. Open content: license deproliferationEarly (1998-2001) licenses niche-centric,most prominently Open Content/PublicationLicenses, FSF Free Documentation License,EFF Open Audio License, but many othersOCL/OPL steward recommended using CClicenses; EFF created one-way compatibilityfrom OAL to BY-SA; FSF created narrow one-way compatibility from FDL to BY-SA toallow Wikipedia to migrateSurprising and good lack of vanity licenses 11
  12. 12. Open content / Open data / PSIAdoption taking off in past couple yearsVarious Creative Commons licenses, CC0PDDL, ODC-BY, ODbLOGL and similar semi-custom instrumentsAd hoc licensing or no licensing 12
  13. 13. 4 sources of interoperabilitychallengesIncompatible open licenses (primarilycopyleft)Proliferation of semi-custom termsUse of non-open public licenses (e.g.,NonCommercial, NoDerivatives)No attempt to be open 13
  14. 14. The UK was able to draw on the work of public sectorcolleagues in Australia and New Zealand. Both countrieshave launched policies designed to open up government andmake PSI more readily available for re-use. They did thisthrough the adoption of Creative Commons model licences.The UK, however, decided to develop a new licence – the The main reason forOpen Government Licence.this was that none of the existingCreative Commons licences extendedto the licensing of works protectedby the database right.Jim WrethamShare-PSI workshop position paper 14
  15. 15. [E]nabling the true potential of public sector information(PSI) requires a cross-border and cross-sectoral approachto licensing. Globally successful licensing suites such as (evenCreative Commons show that this is possiblethough the CC-licences might notalways be appropriate for licensingPSI due to the different nationalinterpretations of the originalityrequirements under copyrightregulation and the existence ofspecific rights such as the EU suigeneris database right).Dr. Katleen JanssenShare-PSI workshop position paper 15
  16. 16. Sui Generis database rightsinadequately addressed in CClicensesAlso the reason for creation of ODbL (incompatible copyleft)To be fixed in version 4.0 of CClicenses 16
  17. 17. Incompatible copyleft licensesdifficult to resolveNecessary: databases and content notseparate magisteria; even if theywere, much use of CC BY-SA fordatabasesCC and OKFn committed to resolutionFLOSS and open content experiencegives hope, suggests solutionsDo not want this to be a legacyissue holding back field for years! 17
  18. 18. Strong expressions of demand frompublic sector for interoperabilityItalian Open Data License explicitlycompatible with CC BY-SA and ODbLOGL “aligned to be interoperable”with CC BY and ODC-BY 18
  19. 19. Addressing other concerns drivingcreation of new PSI licensesPreference for licensing frameworksover new licensesExplain use of standard openlicenses in PSI contextKeep incompatible terms out oflicense, maintaining clearinteroperability 19
  20. 20. 20
  21. 21. (copyleft) wikipedia 21
  22. 22. Key initiatives (CC, OKFn, and you)Work on interoperabilityArticulate and promote consensuslicensing principles for PSI: onlyopen terms (per OKD)Reduce other proliferation, e.g.,with licensing frameworksCollaborate on adoption, capacitybuilding 22
  23. 23. Precision concerning“interoperability”Directional compatibility (one-wayor bilateral)License stewards not only actors:many interoperability gains achievedby communities/projects/institutionschoosing or migrating wisely 23
  24. 24. Key upcoming milestonesDigital Agenda (16-17 June,Brussels)OKCon (30 June-1 July, Berlin)CC Global meeting (16-18 September,Warsaw) 24
  25. 25. Legal interoperability challengesnot all badContributes to deepening ofknowledge concerning open licensing,crucial for long term adoption andproblem avoidance.Still, market confusion bad.Interoperable open licenses shouldbe given, in the background. 25
  26. 26. links: convey yourself to of Sustainable SharingPolicy, workshop position paper) Commons NGO) 26