[cc-community] New Science Commons protocol and the Open Data Commons legal tools
Gavin Baker
gavin at gavinbaker.com
Tue Dec 18 11:36:04 EST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2007, at 16:29, Gavin Baker wrote:
>
>>>> Why have the ODC license?
[...]
>
> 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.
[...]
Right. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm very pleased that we have the ODC
now rather than later. It's important both practically and symbolically.
It was also a very Good Idea to go for interoperability with the Science
Commons protocol.
However, if CC0 is fully interoperable with the ODC, then once CC0
exists there will be (by definition) no practical benefit to maintaining
and promoting both licenses. (OK, the difference in drafting style might
be considered a practical benefit.) In addition, once the ground has
been broken, there won't be a symbolic benefit to having a separate
license, other than the possible mindshare of a license focused on data.
At least that's how it seems to me.
What I really wanted to know, I think, is: What are the eventual plans
for ODC in light of CC0? It seems there are a few options dependent on
some variables:
a) If you think there is no benefit to having a license focused on data,
then don't maintain/promote ODC.
b) If you think there is a benefit to having a license focused on data,
but want to keep it separate from CC, then maintain/promote ODC under
its current auspices (i.e. not formally part of CC or subject to the
same processes).
c) If you think there is a benefit to having a license focused on data,
but want the built-in staff support/localization network/brand
recognition/user base, then have CC formally maintain/promote the ODC
(i.e. by adopting it as a CC license).
I'm curious to hear from both sides, and from the community, thoughts on
this.
> 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.
Just because licensors have to choose from a multitude of licenses in
other areas, it doesn't mean that's a model we should strive to emulate
in data :)
My concern is not that licensors don't know how to choose. I'm sure
they've all gone shoe-shopping before. But I imagine our licensors will
be much less familiar with license-shopping.
We need only remember our conversations with potential adopters --
indeed, we only need to browse the archives of this list -- to recall
what a disorienting, emotional decision licensing can be. This material
is "their stuff", their livelihood, the fruits of their labor. Speaking
of data specifically: It is already an uphill battle to get academics to
share their datasets (out of a significant concern about "getting
scooped" on discoveries). Also, we should foresee that the license
itself will be cold comfort to many potential licensors (many of whom
will be quite concerned over the lack of binding attribution, perhaps
over the commercial use of their data, etc.). This will be a very
difficult decision for many people to make -- we should not make it any
harder on them than necessary.
Having a strong "default" license for data reduces the search costs of
licensing and builds a network effect. Interoperability is not a
substitute for a strong default. This is by no means an argument against
interoperability or against competing/alternative licenses. Rather, my
point is that it will be very useful to build strong momentum in a
unified direction. I encourage everyone involved to give due
consideration to that goal.
- --
Gavin Baker
http://www.gavinbaker.com/
gavin at gavinbaker.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHZ/bztLXQdLhFpekRAuvLAJ9+hfoo+T9PBq/mUeRfI73Ha5vZ7QCdEr/O
ldhpdjXRF3StwqcT9eSCmKU=
=zLk0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the cc-community
mailing list