[open-archaeology] Open Data Licences and the Heritage Lottery Fund (great guidance but recommend the NC clause) - lobbying activity
Ant Beck
ant.beck at gmail.com
Fri Feb 8 13:54:34 UTC 2013
Thanks All so far:
OK: Lets make the workshop generic (I will re-word - although if someone
else dives in I wont complain)
PLEASE ADD YOUR NAMES TO THE LIST :-)
I will then make the statements about the signatories and not about the
Open Archaeology group
Andy: comment in line
On 08/02/13 13:52, Bevan, Andrew wrote:
> I agree with Leif that it might be nice to move from the specifics of
> the HLF case to the general, especially with regard to any possible
> workshop. Moreover, strategically, it might also be best to suggest
> that the HLF itself funds such a workshop as a continuing marker of
> its willingness both to consult further and thereafter lead on the issue?
>
> Also, I vaguely wonder wonder whether the current document should
> address the public domain/CC-0 style licenses vs attribution licenses
> distinction a little bit more? Many would argue that the former is the
> only clear-cut way to avoid some of the data fragmentation issues
> raised, as even proper attribution becomes a tangle over the long term
> (and despite automated attribution methods). However, raising this too
> strongly would certainly be counter-productive as the important debate
> is about NC.
Agree: I don;t want to annoy people at too early a stage
> Happy to sign up to this too if you choose to list people individually.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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
>> <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
>> <http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-archaeology>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/aa4cf3aa/attachment.html>
More information about the open-archaeology
mailing list