[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 11:34:19 EST 2010


On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:22 AM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Puneet Kishor wrote:
>> No one is telling anyone what "should" happen to anyone's data, not
>
> Er, Science Commons does, as I pointed out in the last email.
>
>> 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,
>
> No, it won't. Because it's entirely different.
>
> With CC I have a variety of copyright licenses.
>
> With SC I have a sermon on why I 'should' use CC0, and no other options.
>
> And, a bunch of non-lawyers talking about how data licensing works is entirely uninteresting to me, hence my responses I linked to in the other email I sent which were primarily to a another non-lawyer, John Wilbanks. It turns out if you talk to actual lawyers, it's really nowhere near clear cut as you and John claim, and data licenses are perfectly possible. As should be obvious to anyone, because they've existed for decades in proprietary form.
>


Steve, did you read *anything* that I wrote? Of course, data licenses
are possible, and have existed for, as you claim, "decades in
proprietary form." The problem is that scientific data that may not be
copyrightable should not be protected with licenses. SC doesn't give a
sermon (there we go again with the language) that only CC0 be used. SC
says that we are unable to clearly tell what is copyrightable and what
is not, so we recommend that you waive all your rights as that would
increase its interoperability with other data.

On the other hand, if you are clear about portions of data that you
can claim copyright over, and if you so choose to protect them, well,
by all means use a license of your liking to do so. Heck, at least in
the US you don't even have to use a license. If they are
copyrightable, they become so at the instance of their creation. The
only thing left would be to duke it out in a court of law, if the
situation came to a head.

With regards to "non-lawyers claiming such and such," well, I am
definitely not a lawyer (two law courses only come close to beginning
to understand law), and I don't claim anything. I don't speak for
John, but I do speak based on what John and others at Creative Commons
have explained to me. My understanding is all mine, warts and all.

Oh, and while I am not a lawyer, I have talked to lawyers, and
Creative Commons also has not just talked to lawyers but has lawyers
on its staff. The CC0 language and waiver wasn't just pulled out of
thin air. Lawyers drafted it.

To make a claim now, just as you are doing, "as is obvious to anyone,"
you are clearly not just not convinced of CC0's usefulness and
viability, you think it is patronizing, sermonizing, and misguided.
Well, then, don't use it. Use a license of your liking, and do what
you want with your data. Why even bother waiting for OKFN or someone
else to build a license menu. Just create your own license, or pick
one from the pile of hundreds out there, and go for it.


>> 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.
>
> Yes - and Science Commons should really be doing that with data, rather than preaching CC0 only.
>
> But I've given up on them anyway, the point is can we build a license menu with OKFN, or not?
>
> 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