The document discusses license interoperability from national perspectives. It addresses how certain open licenses like Creative Commons licenses can enable interoperability between data from different sources, but that non-commercial licenses and licenses with share-alike clauses can limit interoperability. It also notes that governments should use notices and disclaimers rather than copyright license terms to address non-copyright issues like privacy. The overall message is that governments should choose permissive licenses and licensing frameworks to maximize legal interoperability of publicly released data and information.

1. license interoperability –
insights from national perspective(s)
federico.morando@gmail.com
slides available under a CC0 license/waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

2. legal interoperability in 1 slide
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability
● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ reasonable interoperability

3. legal interoperability in 1 slide
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability
● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ reasonable interoperability
● Share-Alike licenses

4. legal interoperability in 1 slide
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability
● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ reasonable interoperability
● Share-Alike licenses
problems uncertainty

5. legal interoperability in 1 slide
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability
● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ reasonable interoperability
● Share-Alike licenses
problems uncertainty
lawyers

6. legal interoperability in 1 slide
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability
● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ reasonable interoperability
● Share-Alike licenses
problems uncertainty
;-) lawyers

7. Memento
● Always remind (to your Government) some basic things
● Non-Commercial→ data are difficult/impossible to re-use
in the context of most business models

8. Memento
● Always remind (to your Government) some basic things
● Non-Commercial→ data are difficult/impossible to re-use
in the context of most business models
● NC ALSO → data are impossible to re-use for communities
using open licenses
– impossible to re-use for Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, DBpedia, etc.

9. Memento
● Always remind (to your Government) some basic things
● Non-Commercial→ data are difficult/impossible to re-use
in the context of most business models
● NC ALSO → data are impossible to re-use for communities
using open licenses
– impossible to re-use for Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, DBpedia, etc.
● since Wikipedia (rectius, Wikimedia) is a non-profit
● 99.9% of gov. officers never thought about the fact that
Non-Commercial → NO WIKIPEDIA
– tell them that this is the case
– de facto, NC licenses are only compatible with other NC licenses

10. National licenses & std worries
● Italian Open Data License (IODL):
● take all reasonable steps so that the uses permitted above do not
mislead others and the information is not distorted
● similar to UK OGL:
● ensure 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...
● "all reasonable steps" (and maybe the things that one should
"ensure" under the OGL) could include some (downstream)
licensing choices
● worries → limitations to licensing choices → interoperability issues

11. back to uncertainty
● 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

12. back to uncertainty
● 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
● SHOULD NOT? do they mean DO NOT?
● let's hope so, since you know...
– uncertainty → lawyers → troubles ;-))

13. hope
● luckily, it's at least clear that limiting interoperability is not the goal of
the governments
● e.g. ref. to CC BY and ODC BY in UK licens. framework

14. hope
● luckily, it's at least clear that limiting interoperability is not the goal of
the governments
● e.g. ref. to CC BY and ODC BY in UK licens. framework
● e.g. the IODL even includes a broad compatibility clause
● Derivative work: any translation, adaptation, other transformation or any
change of the information or of a substantial part of the database
● you can create a derivative work and publish and share any derivative
work under the same license or a compatible license
● Compatible licenses (to date):
– CC BY-SA Unported >= 3.0
– CC BY-SA Italy >= 2.5
– ODC ODbL >= 1.0

15. give to © what is ©'s
● © licenses do not cover non-© aspects
● e.g. privacy, trademarks
● sometimes, that's paradoxical, but...

16. give to © what is ©'s
● © licenses do not cover non-© aspects
● e.g. privacy, trademarks
● sometimes, that's paradoxical, but...
➔ Governments may ensure (©)interoperability if
they address non-© worries with other tools
● notices satisfying any taste
✔ privacy notices
– various disclaimers
● “don't violate the law”
● “be kind”

17. give to © what is ©'s
● © licenses do not cover non-© aspects
● e.g. privacy, trademarks
● sometimes, that's paradoxical, but...
➔ Governments may ensure (©)interoperability if
they address non-© worries with other tools
● notices satisfying any taste
✔ privacy notices
– various disclaimers
● “don't violate the law”
● “be kind” ↔ soft law could substitute most stupid license clauses

18. (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

19. Conclusion
● don't use ©-license to address privacy and
similar worries
● if you advise Gov. (or work within the Gov.)
● don't produce a custom license
● produce a custom licensing framework
– using standard © license
● e.g. New Zealand Government Open Access and
Licensing (NZGOAL) framework