OSGEO Spatial Data

[Jo Walsh]

dear Dave, Harlan, all 
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 06:33:23PM -0500, Dave Sampson wrote:
> Canadian verison of the PGL Liscence that we are trying to promote...
> http://cemml.carleton.ca:8080/OGUG/pgl

Daniel Faivre got in touch a couple of months ago via the
publicgeodata.org discussion list to point at your work on moving the
PGL forward. I wonder to what extent you consider the current version
"complete"; is it now being used to license public geodata sets, or is
what you have now considered more of a discussion draft? Do you have
any pilot projects for getting Canadian data-collecting agencies to
release geodata under the PGL?

There's been some controversy around the obligation to have a
ShareAlike-style clause in a geodata license, particularly in how
that's going to extend to "derived works", which could in theory cover
a lot more than improvements to the data and the metadata which
particularly pertains to it. Richard Fairhurst provided an interesting
writeup of worst-case scenarios for a sharealike clause "infecting"
works which are presented with, georeferenced according to, etc a
CC-SA or PGL / other GPL style license: 
http://systemed.net/blog/entry060311122655.html
One resolution he suggested is to provide a parallel 'LPGL' license
which would not carry the same ShareAlike obligation; also to pursue
an idea of licensing a collaboratively maintained body of geodata 
(like OpenStreetmap's) as a Collective Work. 

In either case, I would really like to be able to provide legal
clarity on where the boundary is between a 'work' and a new 'work', as
part of OSGeo's offering through the Licensing Working Group slowly
starting at http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Geodata_Licensing_Working_Group
I definitely think that ShareAlike can be a good model for
state-collected data; one reason often cited for the lack of public
access to state-collected geodata in Europe is that commercial
companies can take a collection like TIGER or RNF and improve it, with
no obligation to put their enhancements back into the public domain. 

Allan Doyle suggested last week that Harlan Onsrud would be a good
person to ask for advice on the legal status of "derived work". I'm
taking the liberty of cc'ing him on this email, as we've also corresponded
recently about research studies which support the economic argument
for public access to state-collected data in general.   

Harlan's project at http://geodatacommons.umaine.edu/ also has a LOT in 
common with your efforts at OGUG and with the interests represented by 
OSGeo's Geodata group, in terms of bringing shared research into
open licensing of geographic data into really practical use through
building public repositories of data and metadata. If OSGeo can be a
place through which to bring better public recognition that so many
people are working on this, and to plan future cooperative efforts,
that would be great.

Thanks again for writing, and I'll make more responses to the second
half of your mail soon,


jo
--
Geodata at the Open Source Geospatial Foundation | http://geodata.osgeo.org/