[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 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.

>>> 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.

Yours &c.

Steve