[@OKFNau] Sustainable open data
andrew.perry at foclaw.org
Mon Sep 2 15:14:05 UTC 2013
Oops - that link to the Australian FixMyStreet should have been:
Andrew Perry wrote:
> This is a great topic!
> My personal view / manifesto is outlined here: http://www.foclaw.org
> In order for sharing of data / code to be sustainable, sometimes a mix
> of free/open/creative commons etc models may be appropriate.
> For example, two organisations that are co-founding the Collaboratory
> incubation and co-working space with us at Parramatta
> (http://www.collaboratory.com.au &
> https://www.facebook.com/CollaboratoryAU) are Open Local (non-profit)
> and Community Builders Australia (social enterprise).
> Open Local has implemented mySociety's Open Source FixMyStreet
> platform here in Australia (http://www.fixmystreet.org), as well as a
> MapIt server of electoral boundaries (http://mapit.openlocal.org.au).
> Open Local allows free non-commercial, low volume use of the MapIt
> server as well as providing subscriptions for higher volume and
> commercial use. Open Local is committed to Open Source / Open Data /
> Open Standards and has, to date, received no public funding.
> Community Builders Australia supports Open Local through, among other
> things, a subscription to the Open Local MapIt server. It uses it for
> the Where to Vote and How to Vote apps it has developed which are
> available free (as in beer) at:
> For Android:
> Where to Vote: http://bit.ly/14JhAbn
> How to Vote: http://bit.ly/15fQHSz
> And for iOS at:
> Where to Vote: http://bit.ly/15fgFmi
> How to Vote: http://bit.ly/15aranM
> The electoral boundaries and polling booth locations / candidate lists
> are provided under creative commons licenses from the AEC / ABS.
> The big win for the AEC out of making their data available this way is
> that they have facilitated the public having access to a free app to
> find their local voting locations and candidates, which they/taxpayers
> haven't had to pay to develop or support themselves. Of course in
> future they may want to have their own branded version of the app (or
> build a similar app). Community Builders Australia's model is that
> candidates/their supports will fund the provision of the app in future
> by paying to include their profiles and how to vote / social media /
> fundraising links in the app in addition to the basic ballot order
> listing of candidates that is provided.
> Election night broadcasts also make great use of data feeds coming
> openly from the AEC. This not only provides transparency, but great
> value to networks who want to provide up to the minute coverage - so
> in line with your question, should TV networks pay for those data
> feeds? Arguably yes - so that at least the infrastructure required
> for a live stream is adequately compensated.
> For example, the data feeds could be made available for a fee to
> networks, and to candidates/parties and individuals/non-profits on
> election night under a "free beer" creative commons licence. Shortly
> after election day the data could then be distributed under a more
> liberal, public, "free speech" licence. (Mind you because this is
> election data I would be more inclined to say it should be licensed
> liberally from the get-go - just the "live" distribution stream may
> not be available to the public or other people who don't contribute to
> the cost of running that stream on election night - but the data could
> still be seeded as a torrent with periodic updates!).
> Other great innovations arising from the "open" release of this data
> are featured in the following article you may have seen:
> Through our involvement as an anchor tenant and co-founder of
> Collaboratory, we hope to bring government, education and private
> sector stakeholders together to use Open Innovation to develop
> sustainable models for creating and sharing tools and data. Creative
> Commons (discriminatory style) licences are one way that this can be
> achieved, by allowing non-commercial / developmental / educational use
> for free while requiring payment for a separate licence for commercial
> use. Like the mining tax ;-), the commercial licence could be
> profit-based (or revenue based).
> As long as the terms of the arrangement are clear and aren't varied
> whimsically by the government licensor, then the development community
> can invest in building great tools using the "creative commons data"
> (without barriers to entry) and then release them in a way that the
> government gets a return on its contribution to the app / service's
> success. We see some parallels in the Apple App Store and Google Play
> Store in that the tools and APIs are accessible for free, but the
> providers get a revenue share for the non-free apps.
> *Andrew Perry*
> Executive Director
> free open creative law
> *P* 1300 855 078
> *M* 0413 045 300
> *F* 02 8090 3699
> *An initiative of legal.consult pty ltd
> *ABN 84 002 413 078
> www.legalconsult.com.au <http://www.legalconsult.com.au>
> Level 2
> 96 Phillip Street
> PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
> This e-mail may be confidential and/or privileged. Only the intended
> recipient may access or use it. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail. To the full
> extent permitted by law we exclude all liability for viruses or
> similar malicious content in any e-mail. Liability limited by a
> scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
> Andrew Newman wrote:
>> I went to Rufus's talk on Friday about Open Data and I asked about
>> the quality and sustainability of producing open data.
>> I wonder about how it's going to work generally? The open data
>> movement is great and I'd like to see it work but the revenue model
>> seems broken. Companies like Google, Facebook, etc. make money
>> selling data and services. The government can provide amazing
>> infrastructure (Internet, GPS, public data sets, etc) but it then
>> fails to capture the biggest revenue stream from these companies
>> which is tax - they are phenomenally good at paying almost no
>> tax . Is there an alternative revenue stream?
>> One project that I'm thinking of, the Queensland Globe, relied on low
>> or free licenses and converting the data to one that could be used by
>> Google Earth Enterprise. It doesn't seem to have been thought of in
>> a sustainable way.
>> Related to this idea is that governments should try and consume the
>> data they produce so that they can reduce the duplication (using a
>> proprietary system and producing regular data dumps). If it's seen
>> as something external to their process they can just cut off the data
>> Rufus mentioned API/services and paying to update (submitting the
>> data attracts a fee) - I think it would help but a lot of these
>> systems already have these models in place and still aren't done
>> sustainably. It seems they think of IT more of a project of work,
>> with a deadline, that is completed rather than one that has constant
>> feedback and maintenance costs.
>> OKFN-AU mailing list
>> OKFN-AU at lists.okfn.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the okfn-au