[cc-community] New Science Commons protocol and the Open Data Commons legal tools

Jordan S Hatcher jordan at opencontentlawyer.com
Tue Dec 18 03:24:57 EST 2007


On 17 Dec 2007, at 16:29, Gavin Baker wrote:

>>
>>> Why have the ODC license?
>>
>> For one thing, CC0 does not exist yet. Someone has to be a  
>> pioneer. The
>> really nice thing is that various efforts converging on the public
>> domain are fully interoperable. :) I imagine that one way to think  
>> about
>> the SC protocol is that it ensures this (interoperability) is the  
>> reality.
>
> Okay, but to put this in another perspective:
>
> You are Dr. So-and-so, a researcher at Openly Minded University.  
> Someone
> tells you that you should apply a license to your datasets to make  
> clear
> they are open (maybe you've already been posting them online, or maybe
> the other person is trying to convince you to do that too). You say,
> "Sure, tell me how." They say, "Well, you have to choose." Stop: fail.
>
> Taking a lesson from the software world: Options are good for those  
> who
> want them, but they're not a substitute for good defaults.
>
> (This is all a bit hypothetical, since CC0 doesn't exist, and even ODC
> is still a draft. But my point is: Options for the sake of having
> options -- especially where the options are functionally equivalent --
> can be a waste of CPU [cognitive processing unit] cycles. That doesn't
> mean don't have options; it means have a standard recommendation, and
> don't tell people about the other options who don't want to hear about
> them and want it to Just Work[TM]. IMHO, anyway. Good stuff  
> regardless!)
>

A few points. The ODC is available in large part because we started  
the Open Data Commons project before we were aware of CCZero or any  
plans by Science Commons to create an Open Access Data Mark. We'd  
already drafted another set of licences (still in beta) that were  
copyleft with very limited attribution, and we jumped at the  
opportunity to create a set of public domain documents compliant with  
the upcoming protocol.

Second, the nice thing, as Mike mentioned, is that when the standard  
(set out in the Protocol) is one of approaching the public domain as  
close as possible, then the licences will be fully interoperable, so  
there isn't a licence proliferation problem like you get with FOSS  
(and with open content). This is important as it means that  
introducing a different implementation doesn't cause data to be  
partitioned off into silos of non-interoperable data.

So then, as you (Gavin) rightly asked, why if they are functionally  
equivalent do you need two different implementations?

A few reasons, including focus, jurisdiction, and drafting. Before I  
list these, I should stress that this is not about competition but  
collaboration between the projects.

Focus

First and foremost the Open Data Commons project is about data.  
CCZero is AFAIK the public domain dedication on steroids -- it is  
built so that there can be a reputation system so that users can gain  
some assurance that a work is really in the public domain by gauging  
the reputation of the person (or org) who said it is in the public  
domain.  As such, it is focussed on any copyrighted work, including  
films, photos, plays, novels, and so on.

The Open Data Commons project is just about data.  That's it. First  
and foremost the goal is to make sure that it works for data and  
meets the needs of producers and consumers of data.  While the PDDL  
could be used for other works, and CCZero could be used for data, we  
have a data-specific focus.

Jurisdiction

While I know that the CCZero process will produce a document that  
works well in multiple jurisdictions -- and if it gets ported,  
through the efforts of all the great teams out there will work in  
many more -- the Open Data Commons project is based in the UK and  
will first and foremost make sure that the unique rights in the EU  
are addressed, such as database rights. This doesn't mean that we  
aren't looking to make sure it works worldwide, but it does mean that  
the needs of the UK and EU (with the help of friends throughout the  
EU) will be met.

Drafting

We've draft the Open Data Commons tools in a plain language style and  
tried to make the Open Data Commons read more like the GPL in terms  
of style.  This style might be preferable for some, though of course  
the CCZero hasn't been drafted yet, so it's hard for me to say.

So your example:

> You are Dr. So-and-so, a researcher at Openly Minded University.  
> Someone
> tells you that you should apply a license to your datasets to make  
> clear
> they are open (maybe you've already been posting them online, or maybe
> the other person is trying to convince you to do that too). You say,
> "Sure, tell me how." They say, "Well, you have to choose." Stop: fail.

First, every other kinds of content already has multiple licensing  
option, including data.  I don't think that making a choice is going  
to stop people from sharing their data under this protocol, and if  
they are equivalent options then they just have to pick the one they  
like.  It is in fact an easier decision than it is in software for  
example, when you have to take into account a whole host of other  
factors.

Choosing from functionally equivalent options is what we do all the  
time if you stand back and think about consumer goods, like shoes.

Anywho, thank you very much for your thoughts on this.

Thanks!

~Jordan

____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer.com
IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net

Open Data Commons
http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/

Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage organisations
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007





More information about the cc-community mailing list