[open-archaeology] Open licenses for archaeological data matter: the case of AustArch

Wed Jul 30 20:37:22 UTC 2014

Il 30/07/2014 14:38, Michael Charno ha scritto:
> 
> We've had one known instance of our data being bundled up
[...]
> Our T&Cs cover this in a way that CC-BY or CC-BY-NC don't suitably
> address in our opinion.

Dear Michael,
first of all thanks for engaging in this discussion. I think we
contributed various points of view as to why the current T&C is not
satisfactory - returning to my own blog post I found the observations by
Jess Ogden particularly remarkable with regard to the uncertainty (or
Uncertainty?) that unclear and/or restrictive conditions creates for
users and re-users.

It is perhaps the first time that I have a chance to hear about actual
problems of improper reuse of archaeological data, and on one hand I'm
inclined to argue that twice in almost twenty years is almost nothing -
but I don't want to minimise the two instances you describe (although
one of them is ... creative, to say the least). Misuse happens all the
time though and there is no evidence of CC open licenses fostering more
misuse than other, more restrictive terms. But I see why the ADS has no
reason to change something that works (current T&C) - as much as you see
why we are asking for that change to happen. The key point here is that
IF the ADS wants to move "forward" in this respect, we will support such
a move. If not ...

> You are right though that the likelihood of re-sale of archaeological
> data is very low, but most of our depositors want that protection
> (for right or wrong).
[..]
> We also don't see much advantage over our current license to the CC 
> ones, other than a small group of people being able to take data we 
> host and re-sell it.  We take on board that we don't technically fit 
> the "Open Data" definition that Stefano pointed out, but in our 
> hearts we will always be part of the Open Data movement...

I did some cut-and-paste from your two emails but I find a contradiction
between the fact (re-sale is unlikely at best) and your take on CC
licenses (CC exposing data for potential resellers). You also point out
that depositors want that protection, but if the ADS staff discourages
anything different from the existing deposit license (I have first hand
experience of that) is that an accurate description of what depositors
want? Truly, as you say, you are first and foremost an archive.

As for the Open Data movement, to be honest the real issue is that you
are totally part of it, not just in your hearts but in the hearts and
minds of most archaeologists, almost certainly as leaders, not secondary
actors (as I have already pointed out in the blog post). This generates
more confusion - why should everybody care about the "real" Open Data if
there's tons of data that is available for download if you click a few
times on the "Accept" button? And how does Linked Open Data would work
if only Google bots are allowed to crawl your content?

> Just want to re-emphasise we are not trying to restrict access to our
> data in any way whatsoever, and think our T&Cs alongside the deposit
> license suitably cover our preservation activities while not 
> restricting re-use in any significant way.  We want commercial units 
> to reuse our data and actively encourage it, and would never 
> discourage or stop them from doing so.  As Stefano has pointed out
> we fully appreciate that standardization is the way forward (we bang 
> that drum in many other arenas), but we do not currently see a 
> standardized license that fully addresses our preservation and 
> dissemination activities and concerns.

Back to the main point (with pants on ;-). You cite reassuring
statements from the Common Access Agreement Preamble, but "this preamble
is an explanatory aid, not a legal instrument. Only the "Terms" below
are legally binding" and I can't see how this has to do with the change
in meaning of "non-commercial". Of course that's a gentlemen's
agreement, that seems to have worked well for you, but we are pointing
out this contradiction as potential or current users of the ADS
archives. I remain firmly convinced that the wording in the legally
binding document is very restrictive - to remain focused on the AustArch
case I would not incorporate the data by Williams et al. in a wider
meta-database of radiocarbon dates, because I would only create that as
a public domain resource available without any restriction, not as a
patchwork of several differently licensed chunks of data. Of course I
can contact them, but by the same logic the T&C are entirely useless.

Furthermore, the deposit license and the common access agreement are two
separate documents, and from your email I understand that there have
been no changes or reviewing of the T&C since their original creation,
is that correct?

I will close repeating myself: we are users of the ADS archives and we
appreciate the great service you bring to the entire discipline -
probably more than the average archaeologist. We understand how your
history shapes your current position but we see open licenses as a
better way for digital archives to publish archaeological data that is
really usable *in practice* for all those who need it (academic staff,
CRM archaeologists, enthusiasts, Wikipedia editors, web robots), not
just as an ideological stance. We would be happy if this conversation
could be followed by changes in the ADS T&C and a more friendly attitude
towards open licenses from your side.

I'd love to hear what others on the mailing list think, perhaps everyone
has had a chance to use the ADS at least once and they didn't like the
"Accept" button?

Best wishes, ciao
steko