[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