Legal interoperabilitymaking open (government) data

compatible with businesses and communities

Global Interoperability and Linked Data in LibrariesAula Magna dell'Univeristà di Firenze

June 18-19, 2012

federico.morando@gmail.com

Nexa Center for Internet & Society, Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN ()LAPSI - The European Thematic Network on Legal Aspects of PSI (http://www.lapsi-project.eu/)

these slides available under a CC0 license/waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

legal interoperability

possibility of (legally) mixing data coming from different sources (e.g. government data, UGC,

corporate data)

agenda

1) © law → open data need “licenses”

2) (hence) legal interoperability (is an issue)

3) focus on various licenses

4) implications

1) (for license stewards)

2) for license users

5) conclusion

the legal background

“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &

including sui generis database right, etc.)

the legal background

“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &

including sui generis database right, etc.)

(without a clear statement → locked data or legal uncertainty)

the legal background

“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &

including sui generis database right, etc.)

(without a clear statement → locked data or legal uncertainty)

open data → open “license”(including dedications, waivers or notices

e.g. CC0 or the PublicDomainMark)

so, to avoid prohibitive transaction costs,we have to deal with “copyright” licenses

so, to avoid prohibitive transaction costs,we have to deal with “copyright” licenses

a common problem without a general solution→ many different licensing tools

(data) licensing landscape

● (FLOSS licenses used for data)

● Creative Commons Licenses● standard general purpose CC licenses

– BY; (SA); [NC]; {ND}

– 3.0 EU licenses (waiving sui generis database right)

● CC0 waiver (with fallback clauses → broad license)

● Public Domain Mark (notice of PD status)

● Open Data Commons Licenses● for (open) data only

– PD dedication (with license fallback), BY or SA (first to be produced, targeting communities)

● National (open government) data licenses● UK: OGL (BY +)

● FR: License Ouverte (BY +)

● IT: IODL (beta ver.: BY-SA-NC +; 1.0: BY-SA +; 2.0: BY +)

● ...

used by/ developed with Europeana

{

the “+”s: national licenses &standard worries

● UK OGL, Italian Open Data License (IODL), etc. ● ensure [or “take all reasonable steps so”] that you

do not use the Information in a way that suggests any official status...

● ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source...

● ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act...

License Ouverte &privacy concerns

● the French LO adopts an interesting solution about several “standard worries”

● section “About the Open Licence” at the end of the document● description of relevant “facts” (instead of clauses)

– Information which contains personal data is not considered to be public sector information re-usable under the terms of French Law – except where persons on which data is collected have agreed to its reuse, where this data has been rendered anonymous by the public sector bodies, or where a legal or statutory provision permits its re-use (in these three cases, re-use is subject to compliance with French privacy protection legislation).

Non-Commercial reminder

● (luckily) this is an “endangered clause” in the PSI domain

● yet, the NC debate characterizes the first phases of most “re-use friendly” initiatives

● de facto, the NC licenses are only compatible with other NC licenses

● always remind (to your institution) some basic things

● Non-Commercial → no (standard) business models● NC also → no (open) communities

– impossible to re-use for non-profit groups including Wikimedia/Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, etc.

● oversimplifying: Non-Commercial → NO Wikipedia (DBpedia)

various approachesto interoperability

● OGL FAQs● information can be mixed and re-purposed easily with

other licence models requiring attribution in that the terms of the Open Government Licence should not present any barriers

● LO● interoperability clause in the main text

● IODL● 1.0 (SA): interoperability clause in the main text● 2.0 (BY): OGL-like solution (FAQs)

a view onlicense interoperability complexity

● preliminary attempt● given the original license

– on the lines

● can I use a given standard license for a “derivative” work/DB?– on the columns

zooming onlicense interoperability complexity

universal donors

universal donors

universal donors

● Creative Commons Zero (CC0)● Public Domain Dedication or License (PDDL)● tagging of public domain content with the PDMark

the problem

● you may have different interpretations● several issues have been oversimplified

– including the licensed rights!● copyright vs. sui generis● database vs. content (“data”)

the problem

● you may have different interpretations● several issues have been oversimplified

– including the licensed rights!● copyright vs. sui generis● database vs. content (“data”)

this is the best proof of existence of aserious problem!

it's not just a matter of theoretical compatibility

it doesn't matter if some legal scholars could argue that mixing data may be possible

re-users need to clearly understandwhat they can (or cannot) do

some implicationsfor license stewards

● beware of license vanity

● work to merge share-alike licenses (or make them compatible)

● don't create new ones!

● you may facilitate (©)interoperability if you address non-© worries with other tools

● standard © licenses do not cover non-© aspects (e.g. privacy)– notices satisfying any taste (e.g. privacy notices)

– soft law could substitute some stupid disclaimers

● if you advise a (public sector) information holder

● don't produce a custom license, but a custom licensing framework– using standard © license (e.g. New Zealand: NZGOAL framework)

some implicationsfor license users

● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution

→ decent interoperability

some implicationsfor license users

● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution

→ decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses

some implicationsfor license users

● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution

→ decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses

problems uncertainty

some implicationsfor license users

● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution

→ decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses

problems uncertainty

lawyers

some implicationsfor license users

● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution

→ decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses

problems uncertainty

lawyers;-)

conclusion (hope)

● it's a learning process● e.g. FLOSS

– ¼ Century to achive (decent) interoperability

– Mike Linksvayer (CC):● FLOSS: discovery concerning what works for field - Early confusion on libre vs gratis -

Early non-commercial licenses, including first release of Linux kernel● Now, people who put first freedom (e.g., Stallman), development (e.g., Torvalds), and

profit (corporations) ~ agree on what free/open means

– Amazing!

● in the mid/long run● legal interoperability could be achieved thorough the evolution of legal

frameworks in order to harmonize the landscape of Government Data

● in the short term● you have to adopt a copyright “license”

● Creative Commons Zero (CC0) or similar “public domain” tools are the easiest and more complete “solution” to license interoperability