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

[Anthony Beck]

On 31/07/14 17:43, Michael Charno wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> Thanks for your comments and others to the list. I think i have 
> explained our position and there is danger that this conversation is 
> going round in circles. The data archived by the ADS has always been 
> open in the generally accepted sense and we’re not aware of anyone 
> (other than the two previously mentioned) who has been actively 
> prevented from reusing it due to our T&Cs.
Hmm. I don't think that fairly summarises the situation. You are looking 
solely to the past and not the future and have neatly side-stepped 
licence incompatibility issues. Assuming the sem-web stuff happens then 
licences that stop/inhibit the computer-based aggregation, inference and 
product derivation are problematic. The ADS licence is generally 
accepted to be unclear and is generally perceived to map to a Non 
Commercial clause.

This isn't an issue about the intent of the ADS licence its an issue 
about the legality of the licence content. You may see it as being 
generally accepted as 'open' but It could be argued that it is not 
legally 'open'.
>
> We’ll continue to provide clarification where needed, and will keep 
> our T&Cs under review as we appreciate that times move on. 
As I was accused of spreading FUD then I would hope the ADS do play 
their part in removing the Uncertainty and Doubt.
> However, given budget and time constraints, we don't see the benefit 
> in trying to fix something that isn't broken by renegotiating 1000s of 
> licences or implementing something that makes things much more 
> complicated to manage going forward. We feel our efforts are better 
> used by continuing to preserve and disseminate archaeological data and 
> promoting best practice for data creators, as we have always done. 
Licences are an important part of best practice. Whilst I understand the 
difficulty of migrating your old accessions. This does not need to be 
the case for new accessions.
> We fully accept that our license doesn't fulfil the Open Data 
> definition according to the Open Knowledge Foundation, and will 
> endeavour to address any confusion caused by this position.

Thanks. May I suggest that this is made both a human and computer 
readable solution. I noted a little while ago that John Goodwin and 
Leigh Dodds wore working on a computer parsable licence calculus.

Once again - I'm sure this forum would like to be part of this

Best

A
>
> Cheers,
> michael
>
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> Michael Charno
> Lead Applications Developer
>
> Archaeology Data Service
> Department of Archaeology
> University of York                  Tel: +44 (0)1904 323967
> King's Manor                        Fax: +44 (0)1904 323939
> York
> YO1 7EP
>
> Disclaimer  http://www.york.ac.uk/docs/disclaimer/email.htm
> ___________________________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-archaeology mailing list
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-archaeology