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

[Puneet Kishor]

Richard,

You make a tremendous amount of sense in this post. More below...

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> Puneet Kishor wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> You say "not entirely". Where OSM is concerned, I'd say "not at all".
>
> OSM data is principally used in the commercial environment and in volunteer
> / enthusiast projects. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no significant
> use or origination of OSM data in the scientific environment. It isn't
> intended as scientific data and isn't used as such.
>

Exactly my point. Assuming the above, then CC0, or any other PD-like
waiver, is probably not suitable for OSM.


> This makes a difference because, as I wrote two years ago at
> http://www.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/
> :
>
>> In the science world, for which this [Science Commons] protocol is
>> intended, citation is an everyday part of life. Learned articles will always
>> cite those whose work they are building on, and will be disregarded by peers
>> if they don't. When Science Commons speak of a "non-legally binding set of
>> citation norms", they can do so in the expectation that these norms will be
>> respected. SC's John Wilbanks says as much in this interesting post: "It
>> seemed we had to think about taking all these social goals and moving them
>> outside the legal world, and into the world that scientists controlled -
>> norms."
>>
>> That isn't necessarily the case with geographical data. If a big mapping
>> company like TeleAtlas or Navteq were to use OSM contributors'
>> work in their data, there's no commercial imperative for them to credit
>> us - let alone to make the rest of their data available on our terms. Our
>> work will be used outside the world that we control.
>

If control over how your data are used is what you desire, and you can
back up your exercise of control with arguments that prove that what
you want to control was controllable to begin with, by all means use a
license then that would prevent others from using your data as they
wish.. instead, put on a license that forces them to use your data as
you wish.

> So CC may not like the ODbL approach. Indeed, John later wrote at
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002318.html :
>
>> But when you call the license written by and for a streetmapping community
>> a solution for the rest of the world when the DBs and norms involved vary so
>> much...well, it's odd to then get mad when the rest of the world comes in
>> and comments on it
>
> Which is a fair point, but it cuts both ways. If CC is only interested in
> catering for the scientific data community, that's fine; but by the same
> reasoning, it should make it explicit that it does not provide, let alone
> recommend, any particular licence or disclaimer for data outside the
> scientific community.
>

I believe that is exactly what CC does... it only promotes is PD like
waivers for its scientific data.


> To get back to the original argument, my personal view is that neither CC,
> nor OKFN, nor FSF or whoever should offer NC options with any of their
> licenses. Discriminating against a field of endeavour isn't "open", you
> might as well have a "no-copying" licence. But that's not the same as saying
> CC0 should be the only game in town for factual data.
>

I am not sure anyone is saying that, but what one is saying is that
using licenses for facts is most likely not going to fly in the
courts, and is more probably cause potential users to turn away.


> cheers
> Richard
>
>



-- 
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