<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks for this insightful explanation, that answers several of my
questions.<br>
<br>
For one point, everything you say about CC-BY-SA goes also for CC-BY
(in a less clear way : the viral mechanism of the "no additional
restriction" specification remains unprecised). <br>
<br>
The issue of data is in fact quite specific and Creative Commons are
perhaps not the best tool to deal with that. Data, per se, are part
of the informationnal public domain. They can never claim for any
kind of protection (though we may consider that any attempt of
"protecting" the individual data falls into the case of copyfraud).
Most downstream application that makes an inventive use of
individual data are never concerned with any kind of intellectual
property (which includes CC licences for that sake). The protection
only goes for something quite unclear: the substantial part of a
database. The jurisprudence remains quite fuzzy. In France, most
attemps to reclaim protection of a database have been rejected. In
1988, the Court of Cassation favored a database company, against the
leading French newspaper, le Monde as the use of articles as data
appeared "highly transformative". More recently, in 2005, another
leading French newspaper, Ouest-France was dismissed in a similar
way.<br>
<br>
It's in french, but you can read the recommandations I adressed to
the French Intellectual Property Council with Lionel Maurel:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.savoirscom1.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Synthe%CC%80se-sur-le-statut-le%CC%81gal-du-content-mining.pdf">http://www.savoirscom1.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Synthe%CC%80se-sur-le-statut-le%CC%81gal-du-content-mining.pdf</a><br>
<br>
We argued in favor of clearly stating that data, per se, are part of
the informationnal public domain. Use of substantive part of data
should be clarified, through the creation of a « fair dealing ». I
guess a lot of work could be done in order to enhance this tricky
legislation.<br>
<br>
PCL<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 24/01/14 13:43, Cameron Neylon a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CF0809AA.DDC6%25cn@cameronneylon.net"
type="cite">
<div>Hi All</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I’ve been watching the conversation but standing back, mainly
because we’ve gone around the NC/BY loop many times but I wanted
to explain for Pierre of why many of us are concerned about
share-alike provisions and why this matters particularly in
research.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First some philosophical background. The Open Knowledge
Foundation work on definitions of open focusses on the issue of
non-exclusion. That is, what the Open Definition means by “open”
is that anyone is free to use the work, and specifically that
there are no restrictions on “fields of use”. This builds on
earlier work with the Open Source Definition where again,
non-commercial restrictions were rejected because of they way
they exclude certain <i>users</i>. FWIW I agree with this
philosophical grounding but disagree with how it is interpreted
in the Open Definition itself (more on that below).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The question of “virality” is two-fold. On one side there is
the community signalling an expectation that those that use a
piece of work from the commons, should contribute back to the
commons. This is a community principle, and arguably an ethical
one. The genius of Richard Stallman was to realise that you
could use a legal tool, a license based on copyright, to <i>require</i> that
derivative work be contributed back. It has to be said this
worked very well in creating the world of Free and Open Source
Software that we have today. Indeed it worked so well that we
now muddle the community principle of contributing back with the
legal tool itself.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>One of the reasons that the tool, the GPL worked so well in
software is because you generally use code to make more code.
And the distribution of code is a natural consequence of making
it. But even here its got messy and the confusions around Affero
GPL and LGPL illustrates. What if I just use the library but
don’t modify it? What if I build a web service on GPL code? Is
“on the web” distributing? The complexities and the
disagreements illustrate the problem of using a legal instrument
as <i>the</i> method of community signalling.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Now research is more complex for a couple of reasons. First
its (obviously) not just articles, its also data, code,
materials, and many other things, many of which get combined
together to create new data, code articles, materials etc. If we
use GPL-like or CC BY-SA licensing we can end up in bad places
such as: I use a CC BY-SA article to build a data set and a code
base. If I distribute these I am legally obliged to use a
license which is inappropriate for the object created (e.g. CC
BY-SA license for code). And yes I know there are ways to get
around this in specific cases but its special pleading which
doesn’t scale. Viral licenses can force people to distribute
under licenses that actually give them <i>less</i> protection
because of the nature of thing being distributed, what
jurisdiction its being distributed from etc etc. (e.g. CC BY-SA
for data distributed from the US is problematic in my opinion,
others argue that its more problematic in the EU because people
don’t realise the CC licenses involve waiving sui generic
database rights).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So issue one is the interchange of objects which can lead to
being forced to use a “wrong” license. But there’s a much bigger
issue which is around the other obligations and rights
associated with research objects. Let’s imagine you’re involved
in a clinical trial and you want to utilise some data which is
CC BY-SA (or ODBL-SA or GPL) to help normalise patient data. The
normalised <i>identifiable </i>patient data will be distributed
to your consortium. Your consortium has obviously signed a
non-disclosure agreement relating to this private data. You are
also bound by ethical principles to not distribute data in such
a way that might make it leak out. Yet if you use virally
licensed data then you are obliged to use a license which gives
downstream receivers the right to redistribute. You are <i>required</i> to
not bake appropriate legal protections into the licensing regime
of the data to protect patient identities.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we return to the original point – Open is about
non-exclusion – this means in practice that viral licenses can
exclude the use of specific works for specific purposes. This is
particularly true of medical research but is very common across
research (an ecology community using ODBL-SA licensed mapping
data to assist with tracking a highly endangered species for
instance) where ethical and community standards require some
measure of protection or secrecy.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The bottom line is that the very power that makes viral
licensing attractive can have serious and unexpected side
effects when they combine with other obligations. These other
obligations; legal, contractual, regulatory, ethical, are common
in research, and they are particularly common as we transform
and combine research objects from one thing to another. Data,
used by code, to generate an ontology, which supports a
standard, which makes papers more useful.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The Science Commons group and community spent a long time
looking at this in the middle part of the last decade but the
conclusion they came to (and they started honestly wanting to
support viral approaches) was that its best to keep the legal
tools as simple as possible and build community standards and
expectations (and if necessary means of censure and punishment)
to ensure the point that I think we all share, the expectation,
or at least hope, that those who use the commons will contribute
back to it. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The refs are a bit out of date now but there’s still lots of
good material at:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/">http://sciencecommons.org/</a></div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing">http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing</a></div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/">http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hope that helps</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cameron</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt;
text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span
style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Mike Taylor <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mike@indexdata.com">mike@indexdata.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Friday, 24
January 2014 12:11<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Pierre-Carl
Langlais <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pierrecarl.langlais@gmail.com">pierrecarl.langlais@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> "<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:open-access@lists.okfn.org">open-access@lists.okfn.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:open-access@lists.okfn.org">open-access@lists.okfn.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re:
[Open-access] [open-science] Open Science Anthology published<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE"
style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0
0 0 5;">
<div>
<div>
<div>On 23 January 2014 14:39, Pierre-Carl Langlais</div>
<div><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pierrecarl.langlais@gmail.com">pierrecarl.langlais@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE"
style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5;
MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div> I'm still a little annoyed to see that the debate
focuses heavily</div>
<div> on CC-BY v. CC-NC. Both of theses licenses are
quite unclear and do not</div>
<div> create an effective legal security for reuse.
CC-BY sounds as an uncomplete</div>
<div> viral license.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just as a point of information (and taking no
position for the moment</div>
<div>on which of the various licences is to be preferred):
CC By is not a</div>
<div>viral licence. That term has a specific meaning --see</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license</a>
-- that downstream works</div>
<div>must use the same licence: something that CC By
explicitly does not</div>
<div>require. CC By-SA is viral, and so is the GNU GPL.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For more, see</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://svpow.com/2013/02/08/what-is-a-viral-licence/">http://svpow.com/2013/02/08/what-is-a-viral-licence/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- Mike.</div>
<div>_______________________________________________</div>
<div>open-access mailing list</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:open-access@lists.okfn.org">open-access@lists.okfn.org</a></div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access">https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access</a></div>
<div>Unsubscribe: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access">https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>