[Aust-NZ] Geoscience Australia goes CC-BY [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Sun Dec 6 15:38:44 PST 2009

Hi everyone

I imagine that the following document is quite well known to you all, but 
in case it isn't, I will refer you to it again.

Report of the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee on the 
Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and 
Data

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/edic/inquiries/access_to_PSI/EDIC_ACCESS_TO_PSI_REPORT_2009.pdf

>From page 111 of the PDF, there's some information about CC licencing and 
it's applicability to Public Sector Information (PSI). There is also a lot 
of information relating to how this applies to Spatial Information. All in 
all, it's quite an interesting read and may add to the discussion.

Kind Regards,

Hamish Taylor
Positioning Regional Victoria Project
Spatial Information Infrastructure Division
Department of Sustainability and Environment
Level 13/570 Bourke Street, Melbourne 3000
Phone: (03) 8636-2894
Mobile: 0428-638-386
Email: hamish.taylor at dse.vic.gov.au

<Ben.Searle at osdm.gov.au> 
Sent by: aust-nz-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
07/12/2009 10:26 AM

To
<scottp at dd.com.au>, <pcreso at pcreso.com>
cc
Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org
Subject
RE: [Aust-NZ] Geoscience Australia goes CC-BY [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi,

Some general comments regarding CC licences.

While the use of CC may not be the best for data, many jurisdictions in 
Australia are moving towards CC licences for their data and information. 
One of the key drivers is to reduce the burden to the community (and 
governments) of having to navigate through hundreds of different licences 
each time data is acquired, exchanged or distributed.  If only 20% of 
government information and data is available under CC, then this would 
save many hours of work and many dollars for all concerned.  Hopefully the 
amount of data and information available under a single licencing regime 
is much greater than 20%.....

Regards

Ben Searle
General Manager,
Australian Government Office of Spatial Data Management

Phone: 02 6249 9298
Mobile: 0439-995-785
Fax: 02 6249 9942
Email: ben.searle at ga.gov.au
Postal address: GPO Box 378, Canberra ACT 2601

-----Original Message-----
From: aust-nz-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
[mailto:aust-nz-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Scott Penrose
Sent: Monday, 7 December 2009 10:11
To: pcreso at pcreso.com
Cc: OSGeo Aust-NZ
Subject: Re: [Aust-NZ] Geoscience Australia goes CC-BY

Hi Brent

Your comments here are very good and well informed. A useful reference for 
licensing.

I would like to comment against only one part of your comments below, 
which is about attribution. If you develop any information in Film or 
Video or Web, then every reference to source code (backend, to 
Javascript), images, video and all media should (and in many cases "must" 
be attributed). This is a common thing in a more art based industry. As 
such, large groups, like RMIT (university) has to keep dedicated groups 
just to keep information on licenses and attribution - and maintain that 
information on their sites for required reference.

Take that one step further, and work in Education (my background has been 
in education software for more than 15 years), where we incorporate 
something like Aboriginal content, and we have a very rich and complex 
licenses which have to be adhered to, right down to removing content in 
certain circumstances and at certain events (e.g. in the event of the 
death of the author).

In the commercial world, when we bring in sources of data such as Weather 
observations, Terrain, Roads & Rivers, Population, etc etc - we are 
required in those licenses to not only attribute the source, but also many 
of the intermediate sources (eg. one provider may convert data from 
another source - such as the Census data being converted into other data 
formats).

And if you ever look into the details box of the about of a program, it 
usually goes on for many pages where the source of content or code comes 
from.

In the end - content, data, code - should be treated the same.

A good example - Open Street Maps - it is edited like content, but it acts 
like data - which is it?

Arguably there are exceptions in law. E.g. if I work on data for my 
customer it belongs to my customer (assuming I don't sign something to the 
contrary). Where as as a photographer if I take photos for my customer, 
they belong to me.

So two things in conclusion:

* We should - even if it is not required in the license (e.g. public 
domain) attribute our sources. It is the right thing to do.
* And the difference between code, data, config, content - is so 
indistinguishable that any difference become arbitrary, so treat them the 
same.

Now that said, your comments here about use of other licenses and the 
issues with CC are still valid and well informed.

Thanks

Scott

----- pcreso at pcreso.com wrote:

> Hi Brianna,
>
> I have some concerns about the adoption of CC licences for data, which
> are shared by others, & have been discussed on the net in various
> places...
>
> CC was designed as a content licence, not a data licence and IMHO has
> two main shortcomings as a data licence (and open database licences
> have yet further idiosyncracies).
>
> Firstly, CC3-BY allows the data to be released with whatever
> attribution requirements the data provider cares to add. Not a problem
> for content generally, but the point in releasing data is to allow it
> to be used & re-used with other data & derivative data. Tracking &
> implementing some attribution requirements in this situation can lead
> to situations where the required attribution is impossible, difficult
> or cumbersome for users. If CC3 is to be used for data, then a common
> & facilitative standard government attribution requirement should be
> incorporated instead of the usual unrestricted one, which lets
> everyone create their own.
>
> Secondly, any information on data provenance (metadata) is not
> required. To be useful, all such datasets should have some basic
> metadata available. For example, data precision, date of release, date
> of expiry (or when it is due to be superceded), etc. A road centreline
> dataset, or census information, or land use data is of very restricted
> use unless this information is available to provide users with enough
> information to know if the dataset is unsuitable for the intended
> purpose for any reason. Without this information datasets can easily
> be misused, misinterpreted & provide misleading results. If I have two
> census datasets, but don't know what year each was taken.... etc.
>
> Several licences for freely available (open) data are available & more
> are being developed, much like the variety of licences for FOSS
> software (GPL. LGPL, BSD, Apache, MIT, etc...)
>
> A few examples of Open Data licences & sources of information:
>
> http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
> https://biblios.net/pddl
> http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-database-licence/
> http://opendefinition.org/guide/data
>
>
> One example that may be of interest, the organisation I work for, NIWA
> in NZ (comments are my opinion, not necessarily NIWA's :-), used to
> sell access to our national climate database. About 18 months ago we
> made this freely available. We went from around 200 paying users to
> currently about 10,000.
>
> It has implications for the organisation, and some users now have
> expectations of availability, so any downtime (even for a free
> service) can occasionally result in quite abusive demands, but I
> believe the freeing up of these data has been a very positive exercise
> overall, despite the inevitable leeches of such services :-)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>   Brent Wood
>
> --- On Mon, 12/7/09, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [Aust-NZ] Geoscience Australia goes CC-BY
> > To: "OSGeo Aust-NZ" <Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org>
> > Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 1:28 AM
> > Hi,
> >
> > Apologies if this was discussed before, but I was wondering if the
> > Geoscience Australia move to the CC-BY license had come to
> > the
> > collective attention?
> >
> http://www.ga.gov.au/about-us/news-media/latest-news/index.jsp#commons
> >
> > As a geospatial onlooker rather than in-the-thick-of-it member I
> > would be interested to hear from the folks here what they think
> > this is
> > likely to mean, or how it may play out, eg more stuff
> > available
> > directly online, less sales?
> >
> > cheers
> > Brianna
> > (Wikimedia Australia)
> >
> > --
> > They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right
> > moment:
> > http://modernthings.org/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Aust-NZ mailing list
> > Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Aust-NZ mailing list
> Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz

--
http://scott.dd.com.au/
scottp at dd.com.au

_______________________________________________
Aust-NZ mailing list
Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz
_______________________________________________
Aust-NZ mailing list
Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz

Notice:
This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, 
confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright.No part of it should be reproduced, 
adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. 

It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete 
it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information 
contained in this email.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.