LAPSI: legal interoperability updated
-
Upload
federico-morando -
Category
Technology
-
view
322 -
download
0
description
Transcript of LAPSI: legal interoperability updated
Ad Hoc Licences,Dominant License Models and(the Lack of) Interoperability
slides available under a CC0 license/waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Introduction:License Interoperability for Dummies
(from an OGDC presentation)
legal interoperability in 1 slide
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ decent interoperability
legal interoperability in 1 slide
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses
legal interoperability in 1 slide
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses
problems uncertainty
legal interoperability in 1 slide
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses
problems uncertainty
lawyers
legal interoperability in 1 slide
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses
problems uncertainty
lawyers;-)
Can we say much more?
Can we say much more?(Yes, of course!
But the policy implicationsdo not change that much.)
(Data) License 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)
● 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 +)
● ...
National licenses & std 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 initiatives
● de facto, the NC licenses are only compatible with other NC licenses
● always remind (to your Government) 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
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 on License 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
A View on License Complexity
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!
give to © what is ©'s
● © licenses do not cover non-© aspects● e.g. privacy, trademarks● sometimes, that's paradoxical, but...
give to © what is ©'s
● © licenses do not cover non-© aspects● e.g. privacy, trademarks● sometimes, that's paradoxical, but...
➔ Governments may ensure (©)interoperability if they address non-© worries with other tools● notices satisfying any taste
✔ privacy notices– various disclaimers
● “don't violate the law”● “be kind”
give to © what is ©'s
● © licenses do not cover non-© aspects● e.g. privacy, trademarks● sometimes, that's paradoxical, but...
➔ Governments may ensure (©)interoperability if they address non-© worries with other tools● notices satisfying any taste
✔ privacy notices– various disclaimers
● “don't violate the law”● “be kind” ↔ soft law could substitute most stupid license clauses
Tentative Conclusion
● don't use ©-license to address privacy and similar worries
● if you advise Gov. (or work within the Gov.)● don't produce a custom license● produce a custom licensing framework
– using standard © license● e.g. New Zealand Government Open Access and
Licensing (NZGOAL) framework
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!
(for the records)
● national sector specific laws– e.g. cultural heritage law
● potentially severe impact on licensing choices– e.g. Non-Commercial or No-Derivatives licenses
● and interoperability consequences