[OSGeo-Discuss] defining a Geospatial Integration Showcase to be launched at FOSS4G 2009

P Kishor punk.kish at gmail.com
Thu Oct 23 12:43:28 PDT 2008

Chris's comments are very valid and very important. I speak from the
position of having been involved in the entire process that gave rise
to the CC0 protocol.

Every jurisdiction has its own laws. Here in the US, databases, for
the most part, cannot be copyrighted. Creative Commons License is
literally a *License* for *Creative*  works, and entails legal
obligations on the part of the entity accepting the license.

The CC0 protocol is *not* a license. It is not legally binding. It is
a *protocol*, a suggested way of doing things. What is says is, in
effect, that scientific data (assuming that geodata are scientific)
are meant for the good of all, and they can't be copyrighted, and so,
should be shared with all without any legal expectation for
attribution but definitely having a customary expectation for
attribution. And, yes, CC0 is also a work in progress.

Any entity that is not comfortable with CC0, not only with the fact
that it is not a license but also possibly not comfortable with the
expectations it lays down, should really pursue its own license. Of
course, that would not be good for the uptake of CC0. It would be nice
for the entire world to adopt and promote CC0 or something like it.

Stuff other than data, such as software, documentation or education
material, can be happily licensed under Creative Commons.

On 10/23/08, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris, and the geodata list,
>  Your comments are valid.
>  Does OSGeo have an official stance on data licencing? If not, I think we
> should.
>  Currently, the Australian government is moving licencing the majority of
> their data (including geospatial) under Creative Commons.
>  The responses I've heard from Australian government about Zero Commons is
> that the license is still in draft, and that a government will need the
> license to move out of draft before a government can recommend government
> agencies use it.
>  I assume this is the license being referred:
>  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCZero
>  Christopher Schmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:21:03PM +0900, Venkatesh Raghavan wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If we find a data custodian who is keen to get their data into the
> Integration Showcase, what sort of criteria should we be specifying for that
> dataset?
> > > > What license?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0
> > > Same as OpenStreetMap
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Please do not encourage new data releasers to release geodata under
> > creative commons licenses. It has ben a source of major disagreements
> > with regard to openstreetmap, and I don't think it's any better for
> > anyone else.
> >
> > Geodata is not creative. Creative Commons licenses are written for
> > creative works. Even the Creative Commons people I've talked to don't
> > think geodata should be covered under anything other than 'CC Zero'.
> >
> > http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262 sums this up quite
> well: if you
> > haven't read it, *Please do* before advising anyone who has not already
> > released data on license issues.
> > Regards,
> >
> >
>  --
>  Cameron Shorter
>  Geospatial Systems Architect
>  Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>  Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>  Think Globally, Fix Locally
>  Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
>  http://www.lisasoft.com
>  _______________________________________________
>  Discuss mailing list
>  Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/
Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/

More information about the Discuss mailing list