[cc-licenses] New licensing buttons
Rufus Pollock
rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Tue Apr 3 07:29:31 EDT 2007
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 09:27 +0100, Rufus Pollock wrote:
>> I've long been meaning to write to the list about the Open Knowledge
>> Definition and Erik's mail has finally prompted me to do so.
>>
>> The Open Knowledge Definition (http://opendefinition.org/) was started
>> just over a year and a half ago and went '1.0' in September 2006. It
>> aims to provide a definition of the 'open' in open
>> knowledge/data/content etc.
>>
>> It is heavily based on the open source definition and the
>> Budapest/Bethseda/Berlin definition of open access (also, unsurprisingly
>> given the common aims of the Definition of Free Cultural Works and the
>> Open Knowledge Definition, these two definitions are in essence
>> identical.) The formal requirements can be found at:
>>
>> http://opendefinition.org/1.0/
>
> "Conventiently modifiable form" and "availability of source data" is
> potentially a big difference.
Good point and this was a bit of a punt in terms of defining what would
be acceptable as an open format (you don't want the 'openness' being
worked around by the data being obfuscated -- i.e. made available but in
some form that is unusable by others).
>> Similar to the Free Cultural Works logo there is also a set of logos/web
>> buttons which people can use to label their work as 'open':
>>
>> http://opendefinition.org/buttons
>
> Great, you're most of the way towards my suggestion at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-April/005384.html :)
:-)
> Another nit -- you intend this to be used for "open data" but in many
> cases data is not copyrightable, so any copyright license granted could
> be somewhere between misleading and, er, anti-freedom. :) As data is so
> prominent in the definition you might want to explain this to people.
> One attempt is at http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases.html
This is something that I've just been having long discussions with
geodata people about[1] and which I've discussed with John Willbanks on
the SPARC open-data list about at some length[2].
[1]: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/geo-discuss/2007-April/000322.html
(and links therefrom)
[2]: https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OpenData/Message/100.html
To re-summarize:
a) We don't have to be talking about copyright any IP right will do
(remember the open knowledge definition is a set of principles not
itself a license)
b) In many jurisdictions data is copyrightable (or has some other kind
of sui-generis IP right). In such cases a license is both valid and useful.
c) Even where such rights are non-existent or doubtful (e.g. the US) it
may be useful to have a license there because it makes clear the
implicit social contract underlying the license (if the license isn't
enforceable anyway then you've lost nothing -- as long as people are
clear what they are doing) see [2] and [3] for more on this.
[3]: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2007-March/000360.html
d) (Controversial point coming up) It is actually good for freedom to
have IP rights in data. As I wrote in [3]: "Firstly, databases are
fairly easy to lock up using secrecy and restrictive licensing --
particularly in the digital age. Thus, the alternative to the [DB] right
is not open dbs but dbs which are closed by access restrictions rather
than using an IP right. Furthermore for those projects which *are* open
having a db right provides a means to protect the 'data' commons using
share-alike provisions (which without the underlying right would be
meaningless). In such circumstances the existence of an explicit DB
right is good for open knowledge and not bad."
Regards,
Rufus Pollock
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list