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

Ant Beck ant.beck at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 08:18:04 UTC 2013


Thanks Mike,

Very useful stuff. I will follow this up.

The main arguments don't hang on a tight legal case. I just don't want 
any legal-ish points to be legally wrong (as you say, hampered by lack 
of lawyerliness ;-)

For info - I have decoupled the workshop element from the letter to HLF. 
This will allow community and domain organisations to support a workshop 
which can benefit the field without having to sign up to a letter which 
may be seen as critical of a fellow organisation)

Best and thanks again

Ant

On 14/02/13 02:50, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> 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





More information about the od-discuss mailing list