[okfn-discuss] Data put under CC-BY in MashupAustralia competition

Thu Oct 1 13:19:44 UTC 2009

On Oct 1, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I recently blogged about the MashupAustralia competition, which was
> announced yesterday:
>
>  http://blog.okfn.org/2009/10/01/australian-government-releases-open-data-for-mashupaustralia-competition/
>
> The competition is putting out lots of open data to encourage innovate
> re-uses - which is great news!
>
> Lots of the data is being released under CC-BY.

I read this yesterday and cringed. "Oh no! another contractual quest  
for recognition!"

> On the competition
> home page, Cameron Neylon raises the question of whether this is
> appropriate for data, sparking off debate with Mia Garlick, organiser
> of competition and ex-Creative Commons counsel:
>
>  http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/30/your-invitation-to-mashupaustralia/#comment-1818
>
> Her basic argument seems to me to be that CC licenses are not "mere
> (copyright) licenses" but are also contracts - in which case CC-BY
> offers legal protection. Its seems that the rationale for doing this
> is that government departments want attribution.
>
> Would be great to have thoughts and opinions of people here!

Give a person a hammer, and all data starts looking like an  
opportunity to get attribution.

For ages now we have been creating knowledge in academia and giving it  
away, expecting, but not contractually requiring recognition. The  
norms of our disciplines have ensured that ripping off someone else's  
work without giving due credit gets censure that is worse than any  
contractual penalty could ever be. Ask yourself -- what would you  
rather? loss of face or some penalty that your contract provides for?

Let's look at it another way -- if you have CC-BY data, and I take it  
but don't give you any attribution (because I am just a prick and  
don't want to give you attribution, and because norms wash off me like  
water off a duck), what is it exactly that you are going to do to me?  
Come after me with what? If your data are really worth any money,  
sure, bind it in a contract and wrap it in a license and track it with  
a beacon to make sure you get your pound of flesh. But otherwise, it  
is just pointless.

Let's not even get into the issue that contracts apply only between  
the two parties that agree to the contract. So, if you agree to the  
contract with the original data provider, and then give the data to me  
without any contract, heck, I am bound by no contract at all.

Isn't it just better to let the normative processes of our  
disciplines, our society and tradition, guide our actions?

(am posting it on the MashUps comments page as well).

-- 
Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org
Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org
Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org
Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor
Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science
=======================================================================