This document discusses legal interoperability issues regarding open data licensing. It notes that for data to be freely mixed and reused, licensing needs to allow this legally without prohibitive transaction costs. Several existing open data licenses are described, but perfect legal interoperability is difficult to achieve. Best practices include using licenses like CC0 that are "universal donors" and promoting reuse of data licensed under ShareAlike. National open data licenses should strive for harmonization and avoid custom licenses when possible.

1. Standardization and License
Interoperability: a Glocal Perspective
Open Public Sector Information: Time for a New Paradigm
Aula Magna dell'Univeristà 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/

2. foreword
as long as a public sector body makes its
(relevant) data available online in machine
readable format and with a license allowing for
commercial re-use, it has my blessing as an open
data activist

3. foreword
as long as a public sector body makes its
(relevant) data available online in machine
readable format and with a license allowing for
commercial re-use, it has my blessing as an open
data activist
but you can always do better!

4. legal interoperability
possibility of (legally) mixing data coming from
different sources (e.g. government data, UGC,
corporate data)

5. 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

6. agenda
1) why (do we care)?
2) © law → open data need “licenses”
3) (hence) legal interoperability (is an issue)
4) a bird's-eye view on license interop.
5) best practices and missed opportunities
6) conclusion

7. the ultimate goal
mix data, re-use them in unexpected ways, be
able to experiment and be quick
and (legally) certain

8. perceived legal interoperability
it's 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)

9. perceived legal interoperability
it's 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)

10. we don't want people to read many licenses, so...
is no-license a good license?

11. the legal background
“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved
(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &
including sui generis database right, etc.)

12. the legal background
“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved
(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &
including sui generis database right, etc.)
(without a clear statement → locked data or legal uncertainty)

13. the legal background
“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved
(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &
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)

14. so, to avoid prohibitive transaction costs,
we have to deal with “copyright” “licenses”

15. so, to avoid prohibitive transaction costs,
we have to deal with “copyright” “licenses”
“copyright” = copyright-like rights
“license” = statements/notices with legal meaning

16. the Commission continues to argue that no-
license is a potentially good option
theoretically, it may be the case (in certain
countries or for certain PSB), but we want a clear
perception of perfect legal interoperability, so this
is not helping
if you want to go this way, do as the US did with
Federal PSI: put it in the public domain by law!

17. (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 +)
● ...

18. 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...

19. 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

20. zooming on
license interoperability complexity

21. universal donors

22. universal donors

23. universal donors
● Creative Commons Zero (CC0)
● Public Domain Dedication or License (PDDL)
● tagging of public domain content with the PDMark

24. do we have universal receivers?
● strictly speaking, no
● (rectius: keeping the data within you firm's 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

25. 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)

26. 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.”

27. 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)

28. some implications
for license stewards
● beware of license vanity
● work to merge share-alike licenses (or make them compatible)
● don't 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
● don't 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

29. to be sure
those 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

30. 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)

31. conclusion (open opportunities)
● it's 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)