[odc-discuss] Fwd: [ODC-Discuss] machine-recognizable labelling

Jordan S Hatcher jordan at opencontentlawyer.com
Wed Feb 4 13:24:11 UTC 2009

My response below, which was unintentionally offlist.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Jordan S Hatcher <jordan at opencontentlawyer.com>
> Date: 3 February 2009 14:36:20 GMT
> To: Rob Styles <rob.styles at dynamicorange.com>
> Subject: Re: [odc-discuss] [ODC-Discuss] machine-recognizable  
> labelling

I'm assuming this is supposed to be offlist?

Response below:

On 3 Feb 2009, at 11:12, Rob Styles wrote:

> OK, in that context the idea of taking the license onto your own URI  
> and hosting it makes sense to solve that problem, but leaves other  
> issues potentially on the semweb side.

I may not be making myself clear as I think that:

-- for metadata / linked data /semweb stuff, I would think that there  
would be no problem with using one set URI at the open data commons  
site for the text

-- when taking a database and releasing it under the PDDL, I think  
that this can be accomplished by a combo of click through to get the  
text and marking the database by putting the licence as a record

Anyway, food for thought.
> I like the idea of a click-thru, and this could be combined with a  
> mechanism for the dedicator to pick different norms that they are  
> expecting people to adhere to - leading to the variety of CC style  
> icons that people seem pretty keen on. That would also give a strong  
> differentiator with CC0 without (I hope) confusing things.

I like this too, but it is important to make sure that people know  
that the norms are not strict requirements, so attention has to be  
paid to this element when creating the system.

> We're talking about this at Talis too, so maybe the time has come  
> for these things to come together again.

That'd be great!

> Where are things up to with the ODC CopyLeft you were working for OSM?

To clarify, I'm not working on it *for OSM.  They sponsored some work  
like Talis did and I've been volunteering my own time to complete the  
ODbL (which Talis kindly started off). Whether they use the ODbL after  
completion is up to them.



> rob
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Jordan S Hatcher <jordan at opencontentlawyer.com 
> > wrote:
> Hi Rob and Jonathan,
> On 27 Jan 2009, at 15:14, Rob Styles wrote:
>> Jordan,
>> Could you give some background on the first two points - that the  
>> URI is not enough and the text would need to be in. That would help  
>> us get clearer on what the appropriate mechanisms might be.
>> The scenario Jonathan and I are considering ate the use of the  
>> license for web-based Linked Data. In this case the response from a  
>> server may be only a small part of the db, just the response to the  
>> query. It's this case that we're trying to understand, as we feel  
>> there is a need to make the license clear even in the small  
>> extract, yet attaching the entire license text to each response  
>> would be a substantial cost.
> Some substantive points and I hope some clarification:
> The PDDL is first and foremost a "Public Domain Dedication" with the  
> "Licence" bit only as a back up. This means that:
> -- My point about linking only applies to the rightsholder who makes  
> the dedication, not to any subsequent use. It is important that the  
> _dedicator_ know what they are doing when they use the PDDL as they  
> are giving up rights. 
> -- There are likely a range of options to help "build the case" that  
> the dedicator knew what they were doing when they used the PDDL.  
> Without trying to explore all of them (which I'd love to try to do  
> with the group) I feel that best practice is for the dedicator to  
> actually have to place the licence text into the database or in a  
> click through to get to the database.  
> -- If a dedicator only puts the URI to the PDDL in a metadata field,  
> this may be enough from a legal point of view. These are IMO new  
> questions of law and fact that may require in-depth research, case  
> law, or even new statutory law, especially in the area of even being  
> _able_ to dedicate work to the public domain.
> -- My point is that there is not a clear cut answer in the law about  
> what it takes to make a dedication stick, and in my opinion I think  
> that we should focus on ways to make sure that dedicators read the  
> text of the PDDL and know what it means to use it. This could also  
> be accomplished by having a click through system as is on the CC site.
> -- What happens to the data after the dedicator has made their PDDL  
> "declaration" (by using the data/database in the web of linked data  
> or what have you) is no concern from the "public domain dedication"  
> side of the PDDL as it is in the public domain and users can do  
> whatever they want.
> -- From the "Licence" side of the PDDL, it would be better practice  
> to show the source of the data, but _it is NOT required_ by the  
> PDDL.   3.3 a provides for as broad a grant of rights possible. [3.3  
> a] The PDDL places no requirement (unlike other open licences) too  
> keep a copy of the notice with the database/data (it doesn't even  
> have a "Conditions of use" section).
> So back to your question, I don't see any reason why you would need  
> to include the full text to a response from a server (and I hope I  
> didn't suggest that!).
> In regards to a stable URI for the licence, we should have one that  
> reflects version control somehow (as CC do), which the current URI  
> does not.
> We will be re-launching the site soon, so will try to implement.
> Hope this helps.
> Rob, you can call me about this if you want to chat further.  You  
> should have my mobile.
> Thanks
> ~Jordan
> Notes
> [3.3 a a.
> The Licensor grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,  
> licence to Use the Work for the duration of any applicable Copyright  
> and Database Rights. These rights explicitly include commercial use,  
> and do not exclude any field of endeavour. To the extent possible in  
> the relevant jurisdiction, these rights may be exercised in all  
> media and formats whether now known or created in the future.]
>> rob

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/attachments/20090204/c1391400/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the odc-discuss mailing list