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

Puneet Kishor punkish at creativecommons.org
Tue Feb 9 10:41:28 EST 2010


On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:29 AM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2010, at 8:57 PM, Puneet Kishor wrote:
>> I am not aware of any "CC0 people" denying ODbL's existence. Actually,
>
> "Open Data Sharing Should Converge on the Public Domain"
>
> http://sciencecommons.org/resources/readingroom/comments-on-odbl/
>
> lots of stuff in this thread:
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002324.html
>
>> I can't quite understand what is being implied above -- should there
>> be a license that only permits NC use, or should there be an absence
>> of license so anyone can do whatever they want to with the data --
>> make money or make sense (as Bucky Fuller would say), or both?
>>
>> As I understand, the CC0 position is that if there are copyrightable
>> elements mixed in with non-copyrightable data, then it is just better
>> to waive all rights so that education, research and commerce all get
>> equal chance to use that data and be able to mix it with other data
>> without any ramifications.
>>
>> There are other subtleties as well, but essentially, the above is the
>> crux of CC0. In my possibly biased opinion, it is a very elegant
>> solution to a very messy problem.
>
> Look at it this way - if Creative Commons had started with this attitude, we wouldn't have any CC licenses. We'd just have a group proclaiming that Copyrighted works "should" all just be in the public domain because it's "better". I don't see why this is any different.


I am not sure why this is turning out to be so difficult to
understand, but let me be clear here. The reason CC didn't start of
with "this attitude" is because copyrightable works are different from
data. That is the reason why this is different.

At least in the US, where CC got its start, works that are
copyrightable can be protected by licenses. Works that are collections
of facts can not be copyrighted, and thus, licenses cannot apply to
them. Well, you and I and the unicorns can go around saying they are
"thusly licensed" but, if contested in a  court of law, at least in a
US court of law, the claim would likely be thrown out. See, I am
conjecturing because no one knows what the court will actually do
until it does it, but it is a pretty good conjecture.

So, to reiterate -- CC still proposes that its CC licenses be used for
works of original authorship. CC also doesn't "proclaim" that all
works should be in PD. It only suggests that for scientific data that
would be hard to defend for its copyright claims. CC's products (its
licenses and waivers) are used worldwide, in all jurisdictions, and a
considerable faith is placed in them (evident from their uptake), so
CC is careful to create something that is as universal as possible,
that would result in the least amount of strife as possible. (by the
way, once again, I am conjecturing... I don't own Creative Commons, I
am not employed by them, I don't get paid by them, not a dime, I am
not sitting in there brains -- I only happen to have a great amount of
faith in them, and they a little bit in me, and I speak based on my
knowledge of what I have read and what I have talked to some of them
about).



>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> What *does* a data publisher want to do? Most likely the data
>> publisher has contradictory viewpoints depending on whether s/he wants
>> to receive the data or wants to give out the data. The publisher would
>> likely want as unencumbered data as possible, but give away as little
>> control as possible. This imbalanced view-point is understandable to
>> the extent that the data publisher adds value to data. But, it is
>> likely hard to defend copyrighting scientific data, and having it
>> converge toward public domain, via PDDL or CC0, is probably the best
>> foot forward. It serves those who just want to tinker with it, those
>> who want to do research with it, and those who want to add value to it
>> and make money with it.
>
> Please stop telling us all what "should" happen to our own data - it's my choice. That's wonderful that in a utopia everyone would release data CC0, and there would be no crime and unicorns would frolick.... It's very paternal. This is the root of the problem. In reality there needs to be a set of options because not everyone subscribes to the Science Commons Utopia, not just a "you guys are stupid and should use CC0". That menu has to include attribution, share alike and NC.
>
> Again, if CC had started like this, we'd have no CC. We'd have a dead campaigning group working to abolish all copyright because photos "should" be in the public domain so that people in science, education and commerce can do what they like with it. Just take your above paragraph and rewrite it from the perspective 10 years ago for copyright and Creative Commons - it wouldn't have got anywhere.
>

Once again you are missing the point, and while doing so, you are
continuing to write in a language that uses colorful words, or puts
unused words in other people's mouths -- no one ever said that anyone
is stupid and should use CC0. Claiming that is what results in what
looks like a religious war.

No one is telling anyone what "should" happen to anyone's data, not
anymore than anyone was ever told what should happen to their
copyrightable works. Yet, a few hundred million took the CC licenses
and used them. Maybe the same would happen with a data mark such as
CC0, maybe it won't, but the faith that people worldwide put into
Creative Commons and its licenses is something to carefully nurture,
respect, and, of course, use to one's advantage.

Lots of people are looking for ways to clearly mark their data. Trust
me on that one, lots of people. The world of scientific data is not
entirely made up of geographic data, and certainly not of Open Street
Map, as much as it pains me to say that, given that I focus on
geographic data and think the world of it -- pharma, biology,
proteins, satellite imagery, ecological equations, there is a lot of
non-copyrightable stuff out there. Stuff that is either already in PD,
or should be (and before you jump on me, I am using "should be" based
on not what my heart thinks, but what my mind knows, based on the
source of funding and the nature of the data).

Photos cannot be in public domain (unless you choose to put them
there) because they have a long tradition of being recognized
worldwide as works of original authorship, works with clear and
uncontested creative content. So, Creative Commons couldn't have gone
around saying that photos be put in PD... that would be wrong and
misleading. Just as wrong and misleading would be to offer a choice of
non-applicable license options to scientific data.

Finally, Creative Commons does realize what you do with your data is
your choice. After all, that is the reason you haven't warmed up to
CC's data license waiver offerings, no? You have the choice to not use
them. Creative Commons wouldn't recommend that you use its copyright
licenses, or contractual agreements to protect scientific data, but if
you do so, well, you are welcome to. Creative Commons has a much
bigger world of scientific data to focus on, and if someone doesn't
want to take its advise on how to deal with their data, well, it is
mostly a free world.

It is not just free, but it is a big, diverse world. There are lots
and lots of kinds of scientific data, there are lots and lots of
jurisdictions, and there are lots of different needs -- education,
science, research, and the need to make money. To top it all, there
are lots and lots of licenses in the world of copyrightable "data" and
they are confusing. Creative Commons believes that by taking
non-copyrightable data and having it converge toward public domain
makes the data most freely and easily mixable with other data (the way
science works) in most all parts of the world. This makes the data
most amenable to doing whatever one wants with it -- learn, teach,
research or make gobs of money.

Now, that was a long email. I wrote it as I thought it up, so if
something comes off as brusque or flippant or disrespectful, I am
offering my apologies in advance. I have re-read what I wrote, but I
think it is mostly correctly, and it mostly conveys the logic behind
Creative Commons' scientific data related offerings.





> Yours &c.
>
> Steve
>
>



-- 
Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org
Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org
Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org
Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor
Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science
=======================================================================
Sent from Madison, Wisconsin, United States


More information about the Geodata mailing list