[okfn-discuss] 4 Ideas for Defending the Open Data Commons by Simon Chignard

[Puneet Kishor]

On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:

> On 14 January 2013 08:49, Michael Bauer <michael.bauer at okfn.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 04:06:58PM +0000, Kat Braybrooke wrote:
>>> For those interested in learning more about the open data ecosystem from a
>>> French perspective, a bit of interesting reading has been featured on the
>>> OKFN Blog today from Simon Chignard, author of *L’Open data: Comprendre
>>> l’ouverture des données publiques. *
>>> *
>>> *
>>> In this post, Chignard discusses linkages between the open data movement
>>> and philosophies of the Commons in France, and proposes four different
>>> scenarios for the defence of common goods.
>>> 
>>> http://blog.okfn.org/2013/01/10/4-ideas-for-defending-the-open-data-commons/
>> 
>> I slightly tripped at point 4. (Charging users of the API for frequent
>> use). Point 1 of the Open Definition: The work shall be available as a
>> whole and at no more than a reasonable reproduction cost
>> 
>> Reproduction costs in APIs is minimal (how much does a GET request cost?) -
>> Further we don't have micropayment systems that do transmit that little
>> money for free. What remains is selling requests in bulk and rate limiting
>> APIs.
>> 
>> To me this puts a risk on app developers: If their (free) app becomes
>> popular - they are suddenly confronted with having to pay for using an API.
>> So I'd rather not go down that route.
> 
> This is interesting point.
> 
> I've frequently said that *charging for API access* to open data is
> fine (and possibly a very good idea) as long as the data is available
> in *bulk* for freely. Running an API is not non-rival and has
> considerable costs: it's provision of a service as much as provision
> of data (it's not so much the cost of pure reproduction as running the
> site, maintaining uptime, engineering the API structure etc ...).
> 
> Note that the Open Definition does not disallow charging for API
> access



FWIW, the US Govt. allows charging for the "minimum cost of reproduction" for its PD products. 

This policy is also followed by a number of organizations (http://www.codata.org/data_access/policies.html) and was also adopted by GEOSS which calls for "All shared data, metadata and products being free of charge or no more than cost of reproduction will be encouraged for research and education." (http://www.earthobservations.org/geoss_dsp.shtml)

Recovering the cost of providing an API or even providing data download would be permitted by such a policy.


> - though if your data is *only* available via a pay for API
> then it is definitely *not* open.
> 
> Rufus
> 
>> Michael
>> 


--
Puneet Kishor