Comments on: Does the OpenDatabase License need CC style Modules? http://highearthorbit.com/does-the-opendatabase-license-need-cc-style-modules/ Transmitting ideas, observations, and images from 42,000 km. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:15:16 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9-rare hourly 1 By: Brett http://highearthorbit.com/does-the-opendatabase-license-need-cc-style-modules/comment-page-1/#comment-284145 Brett Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:24:21 +0000 http://highearthorbit.com/?p=1155#comment-284145 Richard, I think you underestimate the need for NC. For our local government, NC is critical. Not to keep people from making money off the data, but to prevent people from using old datasets. Basically, NC gets slapped on any dataset that is given out one time. If you want to lift the NC, you have to create an agreement to regularly obtain dataset updates; or to think of it another way, we would want a commercial use license on the dataset that expires after a certain period of time, with the current dataset having a fresh commercial use license. NC also gets placed on certain datasets on which we cannot be absolved of legal responsibility (e.g. NFIP maps or surveys by county surveyors) if the dataset is used commercially. If we allow commercial use, we are liable for damages arising from inaccuracies in the data. So, we bar commercial use. Ultimately, this makes the dataset "use at your own risk" rather than "non-commercial". ND has a very specific use too; to prevent the passing on of incomplete datasets. A real common problem is for a cadastral reseller to drop certain parcels, roads, and right of ways from the dataset to compact down the size of the dataset. Nice for them, an expensive nightmare for the department who takes the phone call about a missing parcel or right of way. Obviously, ND is an inapt way of going about this though as compared to a license that would require the dataset to be passed on in full or as a contiguous layer. Richard,
I think you underestimate the need for NC. For our local government, NC is critical. Not to keep people from making money off the data, but to prevent people from using old datasets. Basically, NC gets slapped on any dataset that is given out one time. If you want to lift the NC, you have to create an agreement to regularly obtain dataset updates; or to think of it another way, we would want a commercial use license on the dataset that expires after a certain period of time, with the current dataset having a fresh commercial use license.
NC also gets placed on certain datasets on which we cannot be absolved of legal responsibility (e.g. NFIP maps or surveys by county surveyors) if the dataset is used commercially. If we allow commercial use, we are liable for damages arising from inaccuracies in the data. So, we bar commercial use. Ultimately, this makes the dataset “use at your own risk” rather than “non-commercial”.
ND has a very specific use too; to prevent the passing on of incomplete datasets. A real common problem is for a cadastral reseller to drop certain parcels, roads, and right of ways from the dataset to compact down the size of the dataset. Nice for them, an expensive nightmare for the department who takes the phone call about a missing parcel or right of way. Obviously, ND is an inapt way of going about this though as compared to a license that would require the dataset to be passed on in full or as a contiguous layer.

]]> By: Richard Fairhurst http://highearthorbit.com/does-the-opendatabase-license-need-cc-style-modules/comment-page-1/#comment-213522 Richard Fairhurst Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:12:50 +0000 http://highearthorbit.com/?p=1155#comment-213522 Disregarding attribution (which most people want, or at least, won't refuse), CC has essentially three modules: - non-commercial (CC-NC) - no derivatives (CC-ND) - 'share-alike' (CC-SA) ND is just silly for a database - what would be the point? And I may be missing something, but there doesn't seem to be any clamour, at all, for NC on databases. I can think of one edge case where it might have been welcomed but that was arguably for a not very well thought out initiative. (Never mind that the massive resources required to host an OSM-like dataset may make it difficult to be strictly NC.) So you're left with share-alike and "the absence of share-alike", i.e. PD/attribution only: two licences. GPL and BSD for databases. Happily, two such licences already exist in the ODbL "family": the ODbL itself, and the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication & Licence (PDDL). CC's branding of their different and usually incompatible licences is essentially clever marketing; good for encouraging adoption of "Creative Commons" in the widest sense, but one which has had fundamentalists frothing at the mouth for ages (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#which-cc). It actually masks one of CC's biggest failings, which is that the same licence can have wildly varying effects. For example, CC-BY-SA is largely indistinguishable from CC-BY for photos - 95% of uses count as a Collective Work. Contrast with the all-devouring Derivative Work when applied to data, as per OSM. Very aptly, my iTunes has just chosen to play the Richard Stallman vs Rick Astley mashup and is busy exhorting me to "join us now and share the software". Disregarding attribution (which most people want, or at least, won’t refuse), CC has essentially three modules:

- non-commercial (CC-NC)
- no derivatives (CC-ND)
- ’share-alike’ (CC-SA)

ND is just silly for a database – what would be the point? And I may be missing something, but there doesn’t seem to be any clamour, at all, for NC on databases. I can think of one edge case where it might have been welcomed but that was arguably for a not very well thought out initiative. (Never mind that the massive resources required to host an OSM-like dataset may make it difficult to be strictly NC.)

So you’re left with share-alike and “the absence of share-alike”, i.e. PD/attribution only: two licences. GPL and BSD for databases. Happily, two such licences already exist in the ODbL “family”: the ODbL itself, and the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication & Licence (PDDL).

CC’s branding of their different and usually incompatible licences is essentially clever marketing; good for encouraging adoption of “Creative Commons” in the widest sense, but one which has had fundamentalists frothing at the mouth for ages (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#which-cc).

It actually masks one of CC’s biggest failings, which is that the same licence can have wildly varying effects. For example, CC-BY-SA is largely indistinguishable from CC-BY for photos – 95% of uses count as a Collective Work. Contrast with the all-devouring Derivative Work when applied to data, as per OSM.

Very aptly, my iTunes has just chosen to play the Richard Stallman vs Rick Astley mashup and is busy exhorting me to “join us now and share the software”.

]]> By: Tom Chance http://highearthorbit.com/does-the-opendatabase-license-need-cc-style-modules/comment-page-1/#comment-213509 Tom Chance Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:00:27 +0000 http://highearthorbit.com/?p=1155#comment-213509 As somebody who was involved with Creative Commons from the very early days, I have to say this would be a really bad idea for data like OpenStreetMap's. Different licenses are incompatible, and CC only got away with this because (a) there isn't really all that much mixing together of art works so little risk of license conflicts and (b) where conflicts did arise most people are pretty easy going. With geodata, similar to software, there's a much stronger imperative to mix together data sets. If they were incompatible that would undermine one of the key benefits of OSM, especially to small businesses. Choice isn't an end unto itself. With CC it made sense simply because their licenses cover a massive variety of use cases, from stock photography through music to literature. They have totally different methods of creation, different traditional financial models and different potentials for transformation down the line. I don't see a similar case for geodata, just some people just not wanting to play by the rules for their own gain rather than joining in a community. As somebody who was involved with Creative Commons from the very early days, I have to say this would be a really bad idea for data like OpenStreetMap’s.

Different licenses are incompatible, and CC only got away with this because (a) there isn’t really all that much mixing together of art works so little risk of license conflicts and (b) where conflicts did arise most people are pretty easy going.

With geodata, similar to software, there’s a much stronger imperative to mix together data sets. If they were incompatible that would undermine one of the key benefits of OSM, especially to small businesses.

Choice isn’t an end unto itself. With CC it made sense simply because their licenses cover a massive variety of use cases, from stock photography through music to literature. They have totally different methods of creation, different traditional financial models and different potentials for transformation down the line. I don’t see a similar case for geodata, just some people just not wanting to play by the rules for their own gain rather than joining in a community.

]]>