[od-discuss] Legal assistance request: help to lobby a UK funder to transform a mandated CC-BY-NC to CC-BY

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Ant Beck <ant.beck at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Gray suggested I post my request here.
>
> We, at the working group on open data in archaeology, would like to
> influence the Heritage Lottery Fund to change their data licence from
> CC-BY-NC to CC-BY to stop data fragmentation. You can see our discussion
> thread here:
>
> I have pulled together a document that sets out the arguments which you can
> find here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nw8kwSYdcLgf_QFo5sugRgrwtDtYZomeJ4Sh9T-T46Y/edit?usp=sharing
>
> The aim is to hold a stakeholder workshop (under the auspices of HLF -
> although funding has to be sorted out) to debate the impact of NC on the
> re-use landscape. Outcomes from this workshop can be used to influence HLF
> and other funders throughout the UK and beyond.
>
> My concern is that I would like the statements in the document
> (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nw8kwSYdcLgf_QFo5sugRgrwtDtYZomeJ4Sh9T-T46Y/edit?usp=sharing)
> to be legally factual. It would somewhat undermine the case if any of these
> are wrong.

I understand this, a more watertight argument is always better, but
feel compelled to point out that the decision to use an unambiguously
non-open (eg NC) license ought not hang on precise legal
interpretations, which aren't really available anyway. It's a coarse
decision.

> Can you provide any help? If so what should I do?

It looks like you've gotten some excellent comments already,
particularly from Ross Mounce.

I can't add much due to time and lack of lawyerliness, but some
resources that could provide good citations that I didn't see (may
have missed):
* http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2189/abstract/creative-commons-licenses-and-the-non-commercial-condition-implications-for-the-re-use-of-biodiversity-information
(the title sounds highly field-specific; for the most part it isn't)
* http://pro.europeana.eu/web/guest/support-for-open-data/faqs (the
3rd FAQ "Why drop the non-commercial clause from the agreement?" has 8
concise, probably very well vetted, mostly generally applicable
reasons)
* http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial some data
showing licensees and licensors ... are all over the map with regard
to what NC means.
* http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC old, general, but nothing has changed
* http://blog.okfn.org/2012/10/04/making-a-real-commons-creative-commons-should-drop-the-non-commercial-and-no-derivatives-licenses/
(topical for CC 4.0 licenses, but arguments are the same as ever,
linked to more)

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Ant Beck <ant.beck at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > I think the OKF should create a resource kit for exactly this question that
> > we can point to and also that YOU can point the HLF to.
>
> That sounds like a good, transferable plan. What can I do to help make this
> happen?

I'm not sure what would help, and in what timeframe for the HLF
discussion. I hope that analysis is published. Case/field-specific
ones, even if mostly saying the same things that have ever been said
about NC, are valuable; general resources can just make those easier
to write.

I imagine the OpenDefinition.org site could have a page along the
lines of http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC perhaps with sections
particularly on areas OKF is active in such as government, cultural
heritage, research. Further thoughts from anyone welcome, in
particular what would be helpful.

Mike