Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock AT okfn.org>]

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
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/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