[od-discuss] OKD questions from 2010

Wed Feb 13 11:33:01 UTC 2013

This is great Mike. I also think we want to re-connect with the
relevant folk at the Open Source Initiative.

@Luis: who do you think we should be chatting with? Could you provide
any relevant introductions :-) ?

Rufus

On 12 February 2013 02:59, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> http://blog.okfn.org/2010/08/04/update-on-open-source-initiatives-adoption-of-the-open-knowledge-definition/
> lists some question, with answers in
> http://okfnpad.org/okd-questions (copied below).
>
> I think Q3 is the only one pertinent to a new version of the OKD, but
> feel free to suggest otherwise. I don't have a strong feeling as to
> whether the suggested language is more clear or otherwise better.
>
> Existing:
>
>     The rights attached to the work must apply to all to whom it is
> redistributed without the need for execution of an additional
> *license* by those parties.
>
> Suggested:
>
>     The rights attached to the work must apply to all to whom it is
> redistributed without the need for execution of an additional
> *agreement* by those parties.
>
> (one word change highlighted)
>
> I do think reaching out to OSI again for feedback would make sense
> before releasing a new OKD version, but I'll leave guidance on that to
> Luis Villa.
>
> Mike
> ...
>
> Please add your name in bold to any comments/questions below -- and
> ensure you have a different colour from others!
>
> Question 1. What happens with data that's not copyrightable?
> Question 1a. What about data that consists of facts about the world
> and thus even a collection of it cannot be copyrighted, but the exact
> file format can be copyrighted?  Many sub-federal-level governments in
> the US have to publish facts on demand but claim a copyright on the
> formatting.
>
> Jordan Hatcher: These are both great questions -- I think it helps to
> separate out a few areas when talking about open data and the law:
>
> ## 1.  the data / database distinction.
>
> I prefer to use the term "contents of a databasea" because lots of
> databases will have clearly copyrightable material in them, such as
> music (ex: mp3s), images (ex: Flickr photos), or video (ex: Internet
> Archive stuff). When people talk about "data" they start automatically
> thinking  about 'facts" and then really starting to question the
> available rights  (and rightly so, as it is different -- facts aren't
> copyrightable on  their own).
>
> ## 2.  legal questions on the boundaries of how the law (in various
> jurisdictions) interacts with databases and their contents
>
> There's a bunch of tricky legal questions around how databases and
> their contents, particularly when those contents contain factual
> information, interact with the law.  The law varies between
> jurisdictions and so there's no one set global answer and just like in
>  most areas of the law, these aren't binary yes/no questions.
>
> Just like with open source, I think you have to leave many of these
> questions to the side when trying to define a standard in the area
> such  as what "open data" means.  It doesn't matter in regards to the
> Open  Source Definition what the outcome is on the "is it a license or
> a  contract?" debate lawyers get into.
>
> Question 2. What about data that's not accessible as a whole, but only
> through an API?
>
> Jordan Hatcher: As a concrete example to this question, what would
> open data mean  in the context of the results ("data" or "contents")
> returned from  querying an API? I think to be "open data" then you
> should have the rights to do  what you wish (within the open
> definition scope) with the results of  that query. I don't think that
> opening up the database that sits behind that  API should be required
> to be distributed in order to be open data.
>
> However as a corollary to the above, any license restriction that
> prevented you from being able to get all the database through running
> multiple queries would prevent that from being open data. Technical
> restrictions (number of API calls, for example) would be okay.
>
> Incidentally, the Open Database License (ODbL) would view public  API
> access as distribution and so would trigger access to the full
> database -- see 4.6 of the text
> <http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/>
>
> Question 3. We're thinking that OKD #9 should read "execution of an
> additional agreement" rather than "additional license".
>
> Jordan Hatcher: Seems to make sense. Is OSI considering a similar
> change to the Open Source Definition?
>
> Question 4. Does OKD #4 apply to works distributed in a particular
> file format? Is a movie not open data if it's encoded in a
> patent-encumbered codec? Does it become open data if it's re-encoded?
>
> Jordan Hatcher: Though in the end, we're nothing but data (GATC in
> DNA) I think it might be stretching it a bit as a practical matter to
> consider an MPEG4  file movie as a typical example for open data.This
> does bring up the point though about file formats, and it can be an
> issue. I think that you can still have open data in a proprietary
> format, as long as users aren't restricted from converting the
> database into an open format (or any other format), then it would be
> open data.
>
> Kirrily: here's a real use case, then. Is it open data if the govt
> distributes it as files that need to be opened in a massively
> expensive, non-free statistical software package?  What about geo data
> in formats that are specific to non-free GIS platforms?  These are
> real and common use cases.
>
> Jordan: Yes, an expensive proprietary format can be a barrier, but I
> think there is a line to be drawn on being open *data*. If you are
> legally able to convert that data into an open format, then the data
> is open. There are lots of things that can present a barrier in the
> same way as a massively expensive software package to read a certain
> format -- what about access to the internet, or access to a computer
> at all, or skills to use a computer?  All can form a real barrier to
> access and use/reuse of data, but to be a workable definition I think
> it's best to focus on the legal rights around the ability to do these
> things.
>
>  Question 5. What constitutes onerous attribution in OKD #5?  If you
> get open data from somebody, and they have an attribution page, is it
> sufficient for you to comply with the attribution requirement if you
> point to the attribution page?
>
> Jordan Hatcher: I think this is one of those great questions that is
> best left up to  users to define in practice, rather than to set down
> in stone what is  onerous and what isn't as this will evolve over time
> and across  technologies.  Asking attribution not to be onerous I
> think is a good  starting place, particularly for open data as many
> contributions could  get quite burdensome quite quickly depending on
> how the license was  written.
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss