[open-archaeology] open-archaeology Digest, Vol 30, Issue 3

Fri Feb 8 09:10:57 UTC 2013

Hi Ant (and Lorna)

Great work. I changed a couple  of typos, but nothing substantive to add that
you haven't already covered. Thanks for doing this.

Matt

On February 8, 2013 at 9:30 AM open-archaeology-request at lists.okfn.org wrote:
> Send open-archaeology mailing list submissions to
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> open-archaeology-request at lists.okfn.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> open-archaeology-owner at lists.okfn.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of open-archaeology digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Open Data Licences and the Heritage Lottery Fund (great
> guidance but recommend the NC clause) - lobbying activity (Ant Beck)
> 2. Re: Open Data Licences and the Heritage Lottery Fund (great
> guidance but recommend the NC clause) - lobbying activity
> (Leif Isaksen)
> 3. Re: Open Data Licences and the Heritage Lottery Fund (great
> guidance but recommend the NC clause) - lobbying activity
> (Anthony Beck)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:25:54 +0000
> From: Ant Beck <ant.beck at gmail.com>
> Subject: [open-archaeology] Open Data Licences and the Heritage
> Lottery Fund (great guidance but recommend the NC clause) - lobbying
> activity
> To: "open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org"
> <open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org>
> Message-ID: <51141BE2.40405 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Dear All,
>
> TL/DR: We would like to influence the Heritage Lottery Fund to change
> their data licence from CC-BY-NC to CC-BY to stop data fragmentation. Do
> you support this?
>
> I've been in communication with Lorna Richardson over the past few
> months about the Heritage Lottery Fund guidance entitled ?Using digital
> technologies in heritage projects?. This is a truly wonderful and
> forwarding looking piece of work which IMHO opinion has a substantial
> flaw; they mandate that any content they fund must be made available
> under a CC-BY-NC licence. I'm loving it until the Non-Commercial clause.
>
> I believe they have done this with the best of intentions but do not
> quite see the potential negative implications the NC clause this may
> have over the medium to long term.
> I have spoken to one of their managers and they are somewhat perplexed
> as to why NC might be a problem. I said I would get in touch with a
> number of organisations, get a concensus and then get back to them
> (although likely to be informally through Bob Bewley in the first
> instance). This is the first step in this process.
>
> Together with Lorna we have created a document which outlines the impact
> of NC as we see it and have set forward some recommendations to try to
> influence HLF to change this clause (at least for the data elements - I
> do have sympathy with their arguments that the data creators should be
> in the best position to financially exploit the resources they generate
> particularly if this is images, video or books (but not data (I don't
> consider raw photos to be data per-se))). The recommendation is to
> organise a workshop (under the auspices of OKF or ADS??) with key
> stakeholders in place. The outputs can be used to catalyse an immediate
> re-draft or inform a future re-draft (depending on how they take the
> recommendations!).
>
> You can find the document here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nw8kwSYdcLgf_QFo5sugRgrwtDtYZomeJ4Sh9T-T46Y/edit?usp=sharing
>
> It is open to edits and comments: please feel free.
>
> Please be aware this is primarily of UK interest. However, the
> implications are global.
>
> I would like to find out if:
> this document reflects the views of the members of this forum (i.e. can
> I sign it off as representative of this forum).
> how we can get OKF to provide support for this activity (someone with
> decent debating skills at the workshop with a rounded legal knowledge of
> the CC licences and their impact on the data landscape)
> which other forums/stakeholders to canvas (Antiquist/ADS, etc.)
> Views on stakeholders to invite
> Views on funding (HLF may not fund this activity)
> and obviously critique of the document itself.
>
> I've pasted the executive summary below.
>
> Thanks for reading this far :-)
>
> Best
>
> Ant
>
> Executive Summary
>
> The HLF have produced a guidance document entitled 'Using digital
> technologies in heritage projects'. This document establishes a 21st
> century agenda for funding agencies by recognising the long-term role
> that project content play in science and social agendas. The Open Data
> in Archaeology working group strongly endorses this document and
> believes that improving long-term access to project content will have
> immense impact across domains and have particular benefits for engagement.
>
> However, the Open Data in Archaeology working group has some concerns
> about the use of the Creative Commons by attribution non-commercial
> (CC-BY-NC) licence for all project content. Whilst we see the benefit
> for many project resources we would question the benefit of this licence
> for resources described as 'preservation technologies'. We feel that
> whilst CC-BY-NC may provide some short-term benefits it has the
> potential to produce license incompatibilities which may introduce
> profound problems in the medium to long term. It has the potential to
> fragment the data landscape creating pockets of knowledge which are
> rarely used in mainstream analysis, research or policy making. This will
> be further exacerbated when automated data aggregation and analysis
> systems become the norm. We believe that such fragmentation goes against
> the intent of the HLF document which is clearly focused on
> accessibility, engagement and enjoyment by all.
>
> We would like to engage in further discussion with the HLF on these
> issues and propose that a workshop is established to bring together the
> major re-use stakeholders under the umbrella of the Open Knowledge
> Foundation (who will provide legal, technical and practical advice on
> licence issues).
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:07:22 +0000
> From: Leif Isaksen <leifuss at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [open-archaeology] Open Data Licences and the Heritage
> Lottery Fund (great guidance but recommend the NC clause) - lobbying
> activity
> To: Ant Beck <ant.beck at gmail.com>
> Cc: "open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org"
> <open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CABz56v9cN8S=aSWZ6nj7rR+X7BtNz6VRVyXdxHnTwXkgAffyzA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Thanks Ant (and Lorna)
>
> There's been a lot of interesting development (good and bad) in this area
> recently and I've been very keen to respond but simply out of time to do it
> properly. However, the big shift appears to have been that 'NC-ND is the
> new Closed', i.e. pretty much everyone says they support Open Access but,
> for the reasons you suggest, many organisations are urging NC-ND clauses
> for reasons which are not necessarily well thought out (that's a
> generalisation of course - there are time when such a clause might be
> appropriate). See for example the announcement from the Royal Historical
> Society, section i):
> http://www.royalhistoricalsociety.org/RHSPresidentE-letterJanuary2013.pdf
>
> As such I'd be very keen if possible to generalise such a workshop a little
> bit to produce a document that can be used beyond the HLF. Ideally it
> should make clear the likely consequences of such clauses, so that any
> given organisation can make its own decision as to how far they align with
> its goals. Can I also propose that we consult someone with strong legal
> expertise in this area (possibly from OKFN, ODI or CC?) so that we have a
> rock-solid foundation for any claims we make? There is also a question of
> whether we have time to wait until the HLF get back to us - are there other
> venues that might be available in order to make this happen quickly. This
> shift has happened very recently and it is important to respond quickly
> before NC-ND becomes established orthodoxy.
>
> Lastly, I'd prefer it if the document were signed personally, only insofar
> as OKFN is an open forum and there is no established mechanism in place to
> gauge either how many people are in fact being consulted, or what ratio of
> them are actually in support. A claim of 'tacit' agreement by known
> contributors would be both unfair on them and weaken the status of the
> document. Naturally I would personally be happy to sign any such document
> however (in addition to a petition to the HLF) and would encourage others
> to do so as well.
>
> One last thing - I tried to add my name to the doc but it appears to be
> view-only?
>
> Cheers
>
> L.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Ant Beck <ant.beck at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > TL/DR: We would like to influence the Heritage Lottery Fund to change
> > their data licence from CC-BY-NC to CC-BY to stop data fragmentation. Do
> > you support this?
> >
> > I've been in communication with Lorna Richardson over the past few months
> > about the Heritage Lottery Fund guidance entitled ?Using digital
> > technologies in heritage projects?. This is a truly wonderful and
> > forwarding looking piece of work which IMHO opinion has a substantial flaw;
> > they mandate that any content they fund must be made available under a
> > CC-BY-NC licence. I'm loving it until the Non-Commercial clause.
> >
> > I believe they have done this with the best of intentions but do not quite
> > see the potential negative implications the NC clause this may have over
> > the medium to long term.
> > I have spoken to one of their managers and they are somewhat perplexed as
> > to why NC might be a problem. I said I would get in touch with a number of
> > organisations, get a concensus and then get back to them (although likely
> > to be informally through Bob Bewley in the first instance). This is the
> > first step in this process.
> >
> > Together with Lorna we have created a document which outlines the impact
> > of NC as we see it and have set forward some recommendations to try to
> > influence HLF to change this clause (at least for the data elements - I do
> > have sympathy with their arguments that the data creators should be in the
> > best position to financially exploit the resources they generate
> > particularly if this is images, video or books (but not data (I don't
> > consider raw photos to be data per-se))). The recommendation is to organise
> > a workshop (under the auspices of OKF or ADS??) with key stakeholders in
> > place. The outputs can be used to catalyse an immediate re-draft or inform
> > a future re-draft (depending on how they take the recommendations!).
> >
> > You can find the document here: https://docs.google.com/**
> > document/d/1nw8kwSYdcLgf_**QFo5sugRgrwtDtYZomeJ4Sh9T-**
> > T46Y/edit?usp=sharing<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nw8kwSYdcLgf_QFo5sugRgrwtDtYZomeJ4Sh9T-T46Y/edit?usp=sharing>
> >
> > It is open to edits and comments: please feel free.
> >
> > Please be aware this is primarily of UK interest. However, the
> > implications are global.
> >
> > I would like to find out if:
> > this document reflects the views of the members of this forum (i.e. can I
> > sign it off as representative of this forum).
> > how we can get OKF to provide support for this activity (someone with
> > decent debating skills at the workshop with a rounded legal knowledge of
> > the CC licences and their impact on the data landscape)
> > which other forums/stakeholders to canvas (Antiquist/ADS, etc.)
> > Views on stakeholders to invite
> > Views on funding (HLF may not fund this activity)
> > and obviously critique of the document itself.
> >
> > I've pasted the executive summary below.
> >
> > Thanks for reading this far :-)
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Ant
> >
> > Executive Summary
> >
> > The HLF have produced a guidance document entitled 'Using digital
> > technologies in heritage projects'. This document establishes a 21st
> > century agenda for funding agencies by recognising the long-term role that
> > project content play in science and social agendas. The Open Data in
> > Archaeology working group strongly endorses this document and believes that
> > improving long-term access to project content will have immense impact
> > across domains and have particular benefits for engagement.
> >
> > However, the Open Data in Archaeology working group has some concerns
> > about the use of the Creative Commons by attribution non-commercial
> > (CC-BY-NC) licence for all project content. Whilst we see the benefit for
> > many project resources we would question the benefit of this licence for
> > resources described as 'preservation technologies'. We feel that whilst
> > CC-BY-NC may provide some short-term benefits it has the potential to
> > produce license incompatibilities which may introduce profound problems in
> > the medium to long term. It has the potential to fragment the data
> > landscape creating pockets of knowledge which are rarely used in mainstream
> > analysis, research or policy making. This will be further exacerbated when
> > automated data aggregation and analysis systems become the norm. We believe
> > that such fragmentation goes against the intent of the HLF document which
> > is clearly focused on accessibility, engagement and enjoyment by all.
> >
> > We would like to engage in further discussion with the HLF on these issues
> > and propose that a workshop is established to bring together the major
> > re-use stakeholders under the umbrella of the Open Knowledge Foundation
> > (who will provide legal, technical and practical advice on licence issues).
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > open-archaeology mailing list
> > open-archaeology at lists.okfn.**org <open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org>
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**listinfo/open-archaeology<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology>
> > Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**options/open-archaeology<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-archaeology>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-archaeology/attachments/20130208/bf115031/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:30:42 +0000
> From: Anthony Beck <A.R.Beck at leeds.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [open-archaeology] Open Data Licences and the Heritage
> Lottery Fund (great guidance but recommend the NC clause) - lobbying
> activity
> To: "open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org"
> <open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org>, Leif Isaksen
> <leifuss at googlemail.com>
> Message-ID: <5114B7B2.9000803 at leeds.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Thanks Leif,
>
> Comments inline
>
> Best
>
> Ant
> On 08/02/13 08:07, Leif Isaksen wrote:
> Thanks Ant (and Lorna)
>
> There's been a lot of interesting development (good and bad) in this area
> recently and I've been very keen to respond but simply out of time to do it
> properly. However, the big shift appears to have been that 'NC-ND is the new
> Closed', i.e. pretty much everyone says they support Open Access but, for the
> reasons you suggest, many organisations are urging NC-ND clauses for reasons
> which are not necessarily well thought out (that's a generalisation of course
> - there are time when such a clause might be appropriate). See for example the
> announcement from the Royal Historical Society, section i):
> http://www.royalhistoricalsociety.org/RHSPresidentE-letterJanuary2013.pdf
> Thanks
>
> As such I'd be very keen if possible to generalise such a workshop a little
> bit to produce a document that can be used beyond the HLF.
> Agree - this should be a platform for long-term traction
> Ideally it should make clear the likely consequences of such clauses, so that
> any given organisation can make its own decision as to how far they align with
> its goals.
> Agree. It shouldn't be a mandate but should raise awareness of the
> implications of any decision.
> Can I also propose that we consult someone with strong legal expertise in this
> area (possibly from OKFN, ODI or CC?) so that we have a rock-solid foundation
> for any claims we make?
> Agree completely. This must be solid. I hope the OKF can provide this (Steko:
> can you pursue this?)
> There is also a question of whether we have time to wait until the HLF get
> back to us - are there other venues that might be available in order to make
> this happen quickly. This shift has happened very recently and it is important
> to respond quickly before NC-ND becomes established orthodoxy.
> I know Bob Bewley personally (one of the directors of HLF). I could approach
> him informally on this issue to test the waters and get feedback on what are
> the best ways to formally submit this.
>
> Alternatively we could get an organisation with more grunt to champion this
> (ADS?, Southampton (Web Science Centre)?)
>
> Lastly, I'd prefer it if the document were signed personally, only insofar as
> OKFN is an open forum and there is no established mechanism in place to gauge
> either how many people are in fact being consulted, or what ratio of them are
> actually in support. A claim of 'tacit' agreement by known contributors would
> be both unfair on them and weaken the status of the document.
> Fair point. The text can be easily changed to directly represent the
> signatories. Best to do this once we've decided where else to circulate
> (Antiquist/ADS others) - Broader distribution obviously has time implications
> Naturally I would personally be happy to sign any such document however (in
> addition to a petition to the HLF) and would encourage others to do so as
> well.
> Thanks. See above point
>
> One last thing - I tried to add my name to the doc but it appears to be
> view-only?
> Fixed
>
> Cheers
>
> L.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Ant Beck
> <ant.beck at gmail.com<mailto:ant.beck at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> TL/DR: We would like to influence the Heritage Lottery Fund to change their
> data licence from CC-BY-NC to CC-BY to stop data fragmentation. Do you support
> this?
>
> I've been in communication with Lorna Richardson over the past few months
> about the Heritage Lottery Fund guidance entitled ?Using digital technologies
> in heritage projects?. This is a truly wonderful and forwarding looking piece
> of work which IMHO opinion has a substantial flaw; they mandate that any
> content they fund must be made available under a CC-BY-NC licence. I'm loving
> it until the Non-Commercial clause.
>
> I believe they have done this with the best of intentions but do not quite see
> the potential negative implications the NC clause this may have over the
> medium to long term.
> I have spoken to one of their managers and they are somewhat perplexed as to
> why NC might be a problem. I said I would get in touch with a number of
> organisations, get a concensus and then get back to them (although likely to
> be informally through Bob Bewley in the first instance). This is the first
> step in this process.
>
> Together with Lorna we have created a document which outlines the impact of NC
> as we see it and have set forward some recommendations to try to influence HLF
> to change this clause (at least for the data elements - I do have sympathy
> with their arguments that the data creators should be in the best position to
> financially exploit the resources they generate particularly if this is
> images, video or books (but not data (I don't consider raw photos to be data
> per-se))). The recommendation is to organise a workshop (under the auspices of
> OKF or ADS??) with key stakeholders in place. The outputs can be used to
> catalyse an immediate re-draft or inform a future re-draft (depending on how
> they take the recommendations!).
>
> You can find the document here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nw8kwSYdcLgf_QFo5sugRgrwtDtYZomeJ4Sh9T-T46Y/edit?usp=sharing
>
> It is open to edits and comments: please feel free.
>
> Please be aware this is primarily of UK interest. However, the implications
> are global.
>
> I would like to find out if:
> this document reflects the views of the members of this forum (i.e. can I sign
> it off as representative of this forum).
> how we can get OKF to provide support for this activity (someone with decent
> debating skills at the workshop with a rounded legal knowledge of the CC
> licences and their impact on the data landscape)
> which other forums/stakeholders to canvas (Antiquist/ADS, etc.)
> Views on stakeholders to invite
> Views on funding (HLF may not fund this activity)
> and obviously critique of the document itself.
>
> I've pasted the executive summary below.
>
> Thanks for reading this far :-)
>
> Best
>
> Ant
>
> Executive Summary
>
> The HLF have produced a guidance document entitled 'Using digital technologies
> in heritage projects'. This document establishes a 21st century agenda for
> funding agencies by recognising the long-term role that project content play
> in science and social agendas. The Open Data in Archaeology working group
> strongly endorses this document and believes that improving long-term access
> to project content will have immense impact across domains and have particular
> benefits for engagement.
>
> However, the Open Data in Archaeology working group has some concerns about
> the use of the Creative Commons by attribution non-commercial (CC-BY-NC)
> licence for all project content. Whilst we see the benefit for many project
> resources we would question the benefit of this licence for resources
> described as 'preservation technologies'. We feel that whilst CC-BY-NC may
> provide some short-term benefits it has the potential to produce license
> incompatibilities which may introduce profound problems in the medium to long
> term. It has the potential to fragment the data landscape creating pockets of
> knowledge which are rarely used in mainstream analysis, research or policy
> making. This will be further exacerbated when automated data aggregation and
> analysis systems become the norm. We believe that such fragmentation goes
> against the intent of the HLF document which is clearly focused on
> accessibility, engagement and enjoyment by all.
>
> We would like to engage in further discussion with the HLF on these issues and
> propose that a workshop is established to bring together the major re-use
> stakeholders under the umbrella of the Open Knowledge Foundation (who will
> provide legal, technical and practical advice on licence issues).
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-archaeology mailing list
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org>
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-archaeology
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-archaeology/attachments/20130208/9b92dcc9/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-archaeology mailing list
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/optionss/open-archaeology
>
>
> End of open-archaeology Digest, Vol 30, Issue 3
> ***********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-archaeology/attachments/20130208/d1932822/attachment.html>