[Aust-NZ] Geoscience Australia goes CC-BY [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Bruce Bannerman
B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au
Sun Dec 6 20:09:30 PST 2009
Brent,
I disagree with some aspects of this.
I don't feel obliged to educate all potential users about different data licenses. Even if I did, I certainly don't have the time.
Wrt to 'intended use', I don't believe that this belongs in the licensing realm. It is adequately covered for within our current ISO spatial Metadata standards. People just need to start using metadata appropriately.
My 2c.
Bruce
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcreso at pcreso.com [mailto:pcreso at pcreso.com]
> Sent: Monday, 7 December 2009 2:54 PM
> To: Bruce Bannerman
> Cc: Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: RE: [Aust-NZ] Geoscience Australia goes CC-BY
> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> I think Gavin has summed it up pretty well, but I'll try to
> clarify my concerns here.
>
> WRT open data, the actual licence is only part of what open
> data consumers really need. They (including me :-) require
> not just licenced access to data, but a standard providing
> for & facilitating effective & open re-use of any such open data.
>
> The CC licence is fundamentally fine as the licence, but any
> standard under which open data can be most effectively be
> released (especially from a consumer's perspective) should
> cover more than just the licence.
>
> When users get & merge road data from OSM, federal, state,
> district & local bodies, ideally each dataset should have a
> consistent & compatible attribution requirement which
> facilitates mashup reuse & recombinations, rather than
> creating possible difficulties. Similarly, without some
> provenance & metadata released with the open datasets, reuse
> of the data, selection of the most appropriate data ("fitness
> for purpose") can be difficult to determine & inappropriate
> use of data results.
>
> Those making data available, IMHO, have a responsibility to
> assist users to be aware of issues pertaining to the data to
> assist fitness for purpose evaluations to be done. This
> should be covered in a "standard for release of open data",
> which includes, but is not limited to the licence.
>
> Many very useful maritime charts, for example, have a caveat
> "Not suitable for navigational purposes." printed on them.
> The data they are based on is not up to hydrographic
> (navigational) chart standards. Any release of the data these
> charts are based on should carry a similar caveat. CC-BY
> really provides nothing to cover such cases. I believe a
> suitable open data standard should.
>
> So I suggest the standard for open datasets should ideally include:
> a CC-BY style licence as well as:
>
> a facilitative & generic attribution requirement
> a standard description of each dataset with enough information to
> enable appropriate "fitness for purpose" decisions to be made by
> data consumers.
>
>
> So my concern is essentially that the CC-BY licence is only
> part of what open data consumers really need to fully
> ensure/enable the effective use of open data.
>
> By focusing on just the licence, and ignoring the other
> aspects, we are potentially providing open access to datasets
> which are significantly less useful than they could be, while
> appearing (and claiming) to be providing a more complete solution.
>
> If there are issues with open data & derivative products
> because of such shortcomings, it will be seen as implicit to
> (& blamed on) the open data concept.
>
> CC-BY is indeed a step forward, Hopefully no such problems
> will occur, but I'm more comfortable if this is ensured
> through good planning via a suitable standard preventing such
> issues before they happen.
>
> While I'm not in a position to provide details, I'm aware of
> cases where open data without these extras has caused
> problems for both the user & provider.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brent Wood
>
>
> --- On Mon, 12/7/09, Bruce Bannerman <B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au> wrote:
>
> > From: Bruce Bannerman <B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au>
> > Subject: RE: [Aust-NZ] Geoscience Australia goes CC-BY
> > [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> > To: "'pcreso at pcreso.com'" <pcreso at pcreso.com>
> > Cc: "Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org" <Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org>
> > Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 2:01 PM Hi Brent,
> >
> > Sorry, I'm missing the point.
> >
> > What is it that you don't like about CC?
> >
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pcreso at pcreso.com
> > [mailto:pcreso at pcreso.com]
> >
> > > Sent: Monday, 7 December 2009 11:39 AM
> > > To: Bruce Bannerman
> > > Cc: Aust-NZ at lists.osgeo.org
> > > Subject: RE: [Aust-NZ] Geoscience Australia goes CC-BY
> >
> > > [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> > >
> > > Hi Bruce,
> > >
> > > Similar situation in NZ, NZGOAL is the NZ Govt Open
> > Access
> > > Licence, being discussed at present:
> > >
> > > http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/information-data/nzgoalframework.html
> > >
> > > They are also suggesting CC-BY, but as I said earlier,
> > some
> > > of us have a few reservations about this as the ideal
> >
> > > solution for data.
> > >
> > > Attribution is fine, provided it facilitates mashups
> > &
> > > remixes, but there is nothing about provenance.
> > >
> > > One site in NZ offers its data free for reuse with an
> >
> > > attribution requirement that simply says something
> > like
> > > "Where users believe it is reasonable, please
> > acknowledge the source"
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, we are in an environment where
> > governments are
> > > seen to be, (especially in their mirror) as owners of
> > govt
> > > data, rather than custodians of public data. So data
> > is owned
> > > & only released where required, instead of managed
> > & only
> > > kept private when justified.
> > >
> > > See http://opendefinition.org/licenses for a
> > comparison of
> > > some of the more commonly used licences.
> > >
> > > I very much believe CC licencing for Govt data is a
> significant step
> > > forward, but as a data manager &
> > user, I
> > > believe CC-BY is really only a partial solution to
> > this
> > > issue, but because it is seen by some as a simple
> > & total
> > > solution, we are likely to be stuck with the
> > ramifications of
> > > adopting a less than ideal approach for years to come
> > if it
> > > is adopted as a universal standard for data.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Brent
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Mon, 12/7/09, Bruce Bannerman <B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Bruce Bannerman <B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au>
> > > > Subject: RE: [Aust-NZ] Geoscience Australia goes
> > CC-BY
> > > > [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> > > > To: "'pcreso at pcreso.com'"
> > <pcreso at pcreso.com>
> > > > Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 11:37 AM Hi
> > Brent,
> > > >
> > > > The various CC licenses are quite well respected
> > for releasing data
> > > > under. Many Australian government organisations
> > are moving in this
> > > > direction, e.g. BOM Water Division (and hopefully
> > other data to
> > > > follow), the Victorian Government etc.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if you had to chance to catch the
> > talk at FOSS4G, but
> > > > Anne Fitzgerald from QUT gave a good review of
> > the current state of
> > > > play wrt licensing.
> > > >
> > > > I think that this talk was recorded for
> > playback.
> > > >
> > > > Bruce
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: aust-nz-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> > > >
> > > > > [mailto:aust-nz-bounces at lists.osgeo.org]
> > > > On Behalf Of
> > > > > pcreso at pcreso.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 7 December 2009 7:52 AM
> > > > > To: OSGeo Aust-NZ; Brianna Laugher
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Aust-NZ] Geoscience Australia
> > goes
> > > > CC-BY
> > > > >
> > > > > 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#commo
> > > ns
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > >
>
More information about the Oceania
mailing list