Ad Hoc Licences,             Dominant License Models and              (the Lack of) Interoperability                      ...
Introduction:License Interoperability for Dummies   (from an OGDC presentation)
legal interoperability in 1 slide●   Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability●   CC BY → reasonable attribution      ...
legal interoperability in 1 slide●   Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability●   CC BY → reasonable attribution      ...
legal interoperability in 1 slide●   Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability●   CC BY → reasonable attribution      ...
legal interoperability in 1 slide●   Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability●   CC BY → reasonable attribution      ...
legal interoperability in 1 slide●   Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability●   CC BY → reasonable attribution      ...
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...
National licenses & std worries●   UK OGL, Italian Open Data License (IODL),    etc.    ●   ensure [or “take all reasonabl...
License Ouverte &                    Privacy Concerns●   The French LO adopts an interesting solution about    several “st...
Non-Commercial Reminder●   (luckily) this is an “endangered clause” in the PSI domain    ●   yet, the NC debate characteri...
Various approaches                 to interoperability●   OGL FAQs    ●   information can be mixed and re-purposed easily ...
A View on License Complexity●   Preliminary attempt    ●   given the original license        –   on the lines    ●   can I...
A View on License Complexity
The Problem●   You may have different interpretations    ●   several issues have been oversimplified        –   including ...
The Problem●   You may have different interpretations    ●   several issues have been oversimplified        –   including ...
give to © what is ©s●   © licenses do not cover non-© aspects    ●   e.g. privacy, trademarks    ●   sometimes, thats para...
give to © what is ©s●   © licenses do not cover non-© aspects    ●   e.g. privacy, trademarks    ●   sometimes, thats para...
give to © what is ©s●   © licenses do not cover non-© aspects    ●   e.g. privacy, trademarks    ●   sometimes, thats para...
Tentative Conclusion●   dont use ©-license to address privacy and    similar worries●   if you advise Gov. (or work within...
Conclusion (Hope)●   its a learning process●   e.g. FLOSS    ●   ¼ Century to achive (decent) interoperability    ●   Mike...
(for the records)●   national sector specific laws        –   e.g. cultural heritage law    ●   potentially severe impact ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

LAPSI: legal interoperability updated

732 views

Published on

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

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
732
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LAPSI: legal interoperability updated

  1. 1. 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/
  2. 2. Introduction:License Interoperability for Dummies (from an OGDC presentation)
  3. 3. legal interoperability in 1 slide● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability
  4. 4. legal interoperability in 1 slide● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses
  5. 5. legal interoperability in 1 slide● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses problems uncertainty
  6. 6. legal interoperability in 1 slide● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses problems uncertainty lawyers
  7. 7. legal interoperability in 1 slide● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution → decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses problems uncertainty ;-) lawyers
  8. 8. Can we say much more?
  9. 9. Can we say much more? (Yes, of course!But the policy implicationsdo not change that much.)
  10. 10. (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 +) ● ...
  11. 11. 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...
  12. 12. 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).
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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)
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. A View on License Complexity
  17. 17. The Problem● You may have different interpretations ● several issues have been oversimplified – including the licensed rights! ● copyright vs. sui generis ● database vs. content (“data”)
  18. 18. 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!
  19. 19. give to © what is ©s● © licenses do not cover non-© aspects ● e.g. privacy, trademarks ● sometimes, thats paradoxical, but...
  20. 20. 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”
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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!
  24. 24. (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

×