Towards License Interoperability: Patterns of Sustainable Sharing Policy
Towards License Interoperability: Patterns of Sustainable Sharing Policy Share-PSI.eu Workshop: Removing the roadblocks to a pan European market for Public Sector Information re-use Mike Linksvayer 2011-05-11 / Brussels
Without interoperability re-use is a struggle #! € ? flickr.com/photos/dcoetzee/3566415826/ · CC0
With interoperability re-use is open to the curious citizen. flickr.com/photos/dcoetzee/3566410256/ · CC0
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!
FLOSS: making legal interoperability reality Early proliferation of licenses, many vanity, much incompatibility GPL long dominant license; most licenses unused; other important licenses GPL-compatible after much effort (e.g., Apache2, forthcoming MPL2)
FLOSS: deepening expertise, community, public sector involvement Well of legal and policy knowledge concerning FLOSS FSF in unique position as GPL steward, but small part of ecosystem Activists, analysts, communities, corporations, developers, governments, NGOs, platforms
FLOSS: ongoing Patents, network services, project governance, contributor agreements, public license compliance, regulatory, procurement, funder policy, software mixing with non-software, etc. Many challenges, but significant capacity to meet them: sustainable sharing
Open content: 10+ years toward interoperability
Open content: what works for field? Similar to FLOSS (see Definition of Free Cultural Works, Open Knowledge Definition) for building a commons , though not everyone realizes this yet. Legalizing non-commercial only, verbatim sharing still socially valuable relative to default (attacks on Internet largely concern this), but distinct from open .
Open content: license deproliferation Early (1998-2001) licenses niche-centric, most prominently Open Content/Publication Licenses, FSF Free Documentation License, EFF Open Audio License, but many others OCL/OPL steward recommended using CC licenses; EFF created one-way compatibility from OAL to BY-SA; FSF created narrow one-way compatibility from FDL to BY-SA to allow Wikipedia to migrate Surprising and good lack of vanity licenses
Open content / Open data / PSI Adoption taking off in past couple years Various Creative Commons licenses, CC0 PDDL, ODC-BY, ODbL OGL and similar semi-custom instruments Ad hoc licensing or no licensing
4 sources of interoperability challenges Incompatible open licenses (primarily copyleft) Proliferation of semi-custom terms Use of non-open public licenses (e.g., NonCommercial, NoDerivatives) No attempt to be open
The UK was able to draw on the work of public sector colleagues in Australia and New Zealand. Both countries have launched policies designed to open up government and make PSI more readily available for re-use. They did this through the adoption of Creative Commons model licences. The UK, however, decided to develop a new licence – the Open Government Licence. The main reason for this was that none of the existing Creative Commons licences extended to the licensing of works protected by the database right. Jim Wretham Share-PSI workshop position paper
[E]nabling the true potential of public sector information (PSI) requires a cross-border and cross-sectoral approach to licensing. Globally successful licensing suites such as Creative Commons show that this is possible (even though the CC-licences might not always be appropriate for licensing PSI due to the different national interpretations of the originality requirements under copyright regulation and the existence of specific rights such as the EU sui generis database right) . Dr. Katleen Janssen Share-PSI workshop position paper
Sui Generis database rights inadequately addressed in CC licenses Also the reason for creation of ODbL (incompatible copyleft) To be fixed in version 4.0 of CC licenses
Incompatible copyleft licenses difficult to resolve Necessary: databases and content not separate magisteria; even if they were, much use of CC BY-SA for databases CC and OKFn committed to resolution FLOSS and open content experience gives hope, suggests solutions Do not want this to be a legacy issue holding back field for years!
Strong expressions of demand from public sector for interoperability Italian Open Data License explicitly compatible with CC BY-SA and ODbL OGL “aligned to be interoperable” with CC BY and ODC-BY
Addressing other concerns driving creation of new PSI licenses Preference for licensing frameworks over new licenses Explain use of standard open licenses in PSI context Keep incompatible terms out of license, maintaining clear interoperability
Key initiatives (CC, OKFn, and you ) Work on interoperability Articulate and promote consensus licensing principles for PSI: only open terms (per OKD) Reduce other proliferation, e.g., with licensing frameworks Collaborate on adoption, capacity building
Precision concerning “interoperability” Directional compatibility (one-way or bilateral) License stewards not only actors: many interoperability gains achieved by communities/projects/institutions choosing or migrating wisely
Key upcoming milestones Digital Agenda (16-17 June, Brussels) OKCon (30 June-1 July, Berlin) CC Global meeting (16-18 September, Warsaw)
Legal interoperability challenges not all bad Contributes to deepening of knowledge concerning open licensing, crucial for long term adoption and problem avoidance. Still, market confusion bad. Interoperable open licenses should be given, in the background.
links : con vey your self to http://share-psi.eu/papers/CreativeCommons.pdf ( Patterns of Sustainable Sharing Policy , workshop position paper) http://creativecommons.org (Creative Commons NGO)