[okfn-discuss] a part-free government geodata licensing option

Sun Aug 19 21:38:09 UTC 2007

I thought this odd enough that others might be curious; an arrangement
in Australia whereby 
"
* 85% of government data can be stored under existing Creative Commons
license.
* Remaining 15% requires a royalty.
"
----- Forwarded message from Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> -----

Jo,
There has been some interesting work done in Australia in the licensing 
space done by the Queensland Spatial Information Council  (QSIC), along 
with Queensland Uni Law department.
I haven't got a very good link describing what they are doing.
http://www.qsic.qld.gov.au/QSIC/QSIC.nsf/CPByUNID/6C31063F945CD93B4A257096000CBA1A

But in a nutshell:
* Queensland Government (an Australian State) are looking to standardise 
on their licences to ensure that data can easily be shared between 
agencies without license clashes.
* At the moment, the Government agencies often go externally to get data 
they already own because it is easier to get around license issues.
* 85% of government data can be stored under existing Creative Commons 
license.
* Remaining 15% requires a royalty. Currently, this data is sold under a 
variety of home-grown licenses which are based upon Contract Law and 
typically involves a click through acceptance. (Note that Creative 
Commons is based upon Copywrite Law).
* QSIC is proposing extensions to the set of Creative Commons license to 
create a licence which can be used to charge royalties.

I realise that a Royalty based license probably won't be used by OSGeo, 
however the project isof value to OSGeo in that it will facilitate 85% 
of Australian government data being put under existing CC licenses.

Jo Walsh wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 05:19:53PM -0400, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>  
>>>>Their current projects include GeoDRM (not likely something we are
>>>>interested in) 
>>>>        
>>>I agree that OSGeo is probably not interested in limiting access to 
>>>Data,  but GeoDRM has more uses that that.
>>>It is also used for things like User Authentication and Update Access. 
>>>      
>>Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that I doubt DRM is
>>going to be of interest to the geodata working group 
>>    
>
>I like the term "rights assurance" at the moment. 
>
>Right, the GeoDRM WG members i have talked to, see this effort as, on
>the flip side, a "privacy protection" measure. Here this is again from
>the geoall FAQ: [[ protect the privacy and confidentiality of personal
>information and sensitive geographic information. ]]
>
>It seems to me that this is papering over the cracks of a problem that
>Arnulf identified a while ago, that Internet-based distribution is
>just unpalatable for a lot of organisations, while VPN and/or PKI
>"solutions" already exist for sharing of data between agencies, that
>could be extended to end-users on a regional or municipal basis.
>But because we have the Internet, SDI problems become Internet problems.
>
>To cut a rant short, it *does* make sense to me to listen carefully to
>what the "GeoDRM" scene are doing, to help ensure that Real Security
>Specialists run across their output and take time to critique it.
>The only person i vaguely know who has a firm foot in both these
>worlds is Jan-Oliver Wagner. Interestingly, he is talking recently 
>about a gonzo "OWS-Accounting" project - which would essentially
>enable either prepaid or postpaid *per-request billing for access to
>an OGC Web Service* - and this intrigues me ...
>http://www.intevation.de/pipermail/freegis-list/2007-July/003246.html
>
>cheers,
>
>
>jo
>--
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geodata mailing list
>Geodata at lists.osgeo.org
>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata
>
>  

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Systems Architect, http://lisasoft.com.au
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 