[geo-discuss] [Geodata] Re: Geodata in CKAN and collaboration (was Re: Responding to the consultation on opening Ordnance Survey's data)

[SteveC]

On Feb 8, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Jo Walsh wrote:

> dear Andrew, thanks for taking the time to write,
> 
> On 08/02/2010 16:49, Andrew Turner wrote:
>> We've been actively working with various groups and Lawyers on how CC
>> applies to data. Obviously there has been a lot of work in ODbL, but
>> we're still missing the "menu" of available licenses. Currently all
>> licenses are unique unless they're using PD/CC0.
> 
> Have you looked at the data license menu from CKAN.net - the dropdown list at http://www.ckan.net/package/new - this cites Open Knowledge Definition compliance for some data licenses. See also
> http://opendefinition.org/licenses

I think this is the thing that Rufus waved around as the reason there wouldn't be a NC version of the ODbL. Which I have to super disagree with. You can push the rhetoric and religion so far on 'openness' but simply denying that NC should exist is like the CC0 people denying that the ODbL 'should' exist. It's stupid. In a full menu of options which Andrew rightly points out as needed, NC needs to be there. Even if it's not widely used (I think actually it might well be, viz Google releasing their map data NC for Christ's sake) it will point out that whoever provides this menu is not a religious organisation but pragmatic. That's incredibly important.

Frankly, I think if the ODC / OKFN / CKAN or whatever acronym storm it is that publishes the ODbL is unable to recognise that then it's inevitable that someone else will. We're at the point in time where there's a lot of data coming out, and just doing a dance and incanting the Public Domain mantra won't fly. The ODbL gets us quite a way there, but it needs to look like this:

	http://creativecommons.org/choose/

So given all the religion floating around, the basic question to me is: Is the ODbL forkable? Because if it is, then we can build an organisation which can build the above. Unless, of course, ODC / OKFN / CKAN changes it's position on whether we're allowed to use condoms or not. And if it does, I'll wholeheartedly support it. But right now, with all due respect to everything Rufus has done, I'm very wary of the intersection of what a data publisher wants to do and what Rufus thinks you should be able to do.

Yours &c.

Steve