[okfn-discuss] Postcode data petition - unsure.

Wed Oct 14 15:11:03 UTC 2009

On Oct 14, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:

> 2009/10/14 Jo Walsh <jo at frot.org>:
>> dear all,
>>
>> I've seen posted today a petition to provide "non-profit and  
>> community
>> websites" with free access to the Royal Mail data - this is in the
>> wake of the statement from planningalerts.com that they are
>> considering withdrawing their service rather than pay licensing fees
>> to the Royal Mail - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7700621.stm
>> - thanks, James.
>>
>> I'm doubtful enough about this not to sign the petition.
>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/nfppostcodes/
>>
>> Open access for "non-profits" will create an administration burden,  
>> as
>> organisations need to be certified, some may not even be legal
>> entities yet be popular going concerns, proposed usage needs to be
>> evaluated. Lots of time needed from humans here.
>
> I agree: I think if one is aiming to open data up one should be aiming
> for proper "open" data.
>
> Creating a divisions between  not-for-profit/non-commercial from
> everything else is, I think, mistake.

Which is precisely why I believe all the ShareAlike licenses are  
misdirected. Business folks and entrepreneurs don't want to lose  
control over their IP, and so, are wary of ShareAlike in both software  
and data, but especially in data. By forcing the adopter to "my way,"  
I restrict interoperability.

I just returned from a 3-day global conference on entrepreneurship and  
innovation. I was handing out my "Creative Commons" business cards,  
and guess what -- none of them had heard of it. I tend to forget that  
the world doesn't really know about these alternative rights  
movements, and although it is happy to learn about it, it is a big  
world out there. They will be willing to adopt alternative schemes for  
licensing provided they don't perceive them as a threat to their  
control and freedom.

>
>> There is a spectrum, not a line, between non-profit and for-profit
>> activity. There are plenty of organisations that make a surplus to be
>> reinvested in operations. There are plenty of websites out there
>> running Google AdWords to support running costs, money changes hands,
>> the behaviour is commercial. Politicians talk about social  
>> enterprise,
>> the third sector, does this description fit. There's also a lot of
>> potential non-"website" use in running mailling lists, canvassing
>> applications, would this be included.
>
> Excellently put -- and all good points.
>
>> Open access to postcode data for all, would be cheaper to run as well
>> as a more equitable position. There's a factoid from Rufus in a
>> Guardian article covering this discussion: "Rufus Pollock, a  
>> Cambridge
>> economist who co-wrote a study for the government on the economic
>> benefit of making trading funds' data free, calculates that making
>> PostZon free would bring an economic benefit 50% greater than Royal
>> Mail's present revenues."
>
> I'd also emphasize that such estimates are predicated on an assumption
> of commercial access since it will often be "commercial" organizations
> who are the reusers and redistributors -- which is where the welfare
> gains come from.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rufus
>

-- 
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
=======================================================================