[od-discuss] Schema for open licenses

Mon Jun 18 17:33:50 UTC 2012

Hi Kent,

Great idea.

I am not sure if your "indemnity" clause covers this but I would like to
see something in the schema to describe rights clearing.

When data is published by a party (say a government body) that, as it turns
out later on, does not have the right to do so, and someone takes that data
in good faith and builds a company around it, what happens?

Who is responsible for making sure the publisher has the right to publish
the data?  Some licenses shift the responsibility to the consumer ("if it
turns out this isn't ours, we never licensed it to you in the first
place").  Other licenses put the responsibility on the publisher ("If you
are publishing under this license, make sure you have the right to do so,
as this is irrevocable").

As the publisher holds the data and is the only one involved in any 3rd
party rights, they are the only ones equipped to assess whether or not they
have the right to publish the data.  Shifting that to the consumer is
shifting a lot of risk to the person least able to make the judgement.

While keeping the responsibility with the publisher doesn't change the fact
that a 3rd party may in fact have rights, I think it gives the consumer,
who uses the data in good faith a reason to believe that the publisher has
done their homework.

For this reason, I feel that licenses that put the responsibility on the
publisher ( such as PDDL ) are superior to licenses that
simply relinquish rights ( such as CC0 and CC-by ) for the purposes of
publishing open data.

If that makes sense, maybe there is room in your schema for some way to
capture this idea of rights clearing.

Herb

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Kent Mewhort <kmewhort at cippic.ca> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm working on a project to create a web-based tool for analyzing
> interoperability between different open licenses, with a focus on data
> licenses.  As I first step, I'm going to develop a schema to describe
> the core legal terms of a license in a machine-readable format.  This
> will allow for an automated first-level analysis of interoperability
> (certainly, many licenses will still need a much more detailed analysis,
> but I'm confident an automated analysis of the core license terms can
> provide a reasonably accurate picture).
>
> A good way for me to do this could be to branch the OD github repo,
> expand the JSON schema, and start filling it in for different licenses.
>
> Is this something that others think might be worthwhile to push back
> into the core at a later time, assuming development goes well?
>
> Also, I took a first stab at some of the elements that I'm looking to
> include.  Anyone see any important license elements that are missing
> from this description?
>
> Domain:
> -Government open data
> -Non-government open data
> -Open source
> -Content
>
> Categories of rights granted:
> -Use and Reproduce
> -Modify
> -Distribute
>
> Scope of rights/permissions (whether granted or waived)
> -Copyright
> -Neighbouring rights
> -Database rights
> -Moral rights
> -Trade-mark
> -Patent
> -Circumvention of TPMs
> -Commercial purposes
>
> Attribution requirement:
> -Specifically worded attribution (inc/ field for wording)
> -Flexible attribution
>
> Copyleft / share-alike applies to:
> -Original work (verbatim copy)
> -Any modified file
> -Adaptations / derivative works
> -Compilations / Larger works
>
> Copyleft (if any) kicks-in upon:
> -Use
> -Distribution
> -Access over a computer network (Affero)
>
> Disclaimers
> -Disclaimer of warranty
> -Limitation of liability
> -Indemnity
>
> Termination
> -Termination at discretion of licensor
> -Automatic termination upon breach
> -Automatic reinstatement
>
> Choice of law
> -None specified
> -Specific jurisdiction
> -Principal residence of defendant
> -Principal residence of plaintiff
> -Principal residence of licensor
>
> Choice of forum
> -None specified
> -Specific jurisdiction
> -Principal residence of defendant
> -Principal residence of plaintiff
> -Principal residence of licensor
>
> Kent
>
> --
> Kent Mewhort
> Legal Staff
> CIPPIC, the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy &
> Public Interest Clinic
> University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law
> 57 Louis Pasteur St.
> Ottawa, Ontario  K1N 6N5
>
> Ph:  (613)562-5800 (ext.2556)
> Fax: (613)562-5417
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION AND DISCLAIMER
> This message is intended only for the use of the individual
> or entity to which it is addressed and contains information
> that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this
> message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please notify us immediately at (613)562-5800 (ext.2556) and
> delete the original message. If you are the intended recipient
> of this message, we remind you that electronic mail on the
> Internet may not be secure and that this message was not and
> future messages will not be encrypted or otherwise protected,
> unless specifically requested, in which case, special
> arrangements will be made.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>

-- 
Herb Lainchbury
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
www.dynamic-solutions.com
http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20120618/4c878bc4/attachment-0001.html>