[open-government] Share-alike

Wed Sep 21 18:49:48 UTC 2011

Thanks for all the great feedback guys, this is helping us quite a bit. 

Cheers,

Jonathan
MontrealOuvert.net

On 2011-09-21, at 5:17 AM, Chris Taggart wrote:

> Here's why I think the Share-Alike licence for core data published by public bodies is a bad idea. This opinion has refined over time (I originally had a learning towards SA), based on personal experience working with masses of public data under a variety of licences, and also trying to build pro-community businesses based on that.
> 
> When you charge for the data, you are by definition restricting access to those who can afford to pay. Not only does this shut out the wider community, it also encourages monopolies and defends incumbents, whose by definition have a business model based on the charging regime. We've seen this happen in multiple areas, from postcodes to political data, and seen to that because these groups are seen as the key stakeholders any changes must be passed by them, in the process stifling innovation, atrophying business models, and disabling reuse of the data in non-core areas.
> 
> It also acts to obscure the original purpose of collecting the data, which was usually either for scrutiny purposes, or for the more efficient running of society/the state.
> 
> Share-Alike is in practice a tweak on this model, as it's almost always means Share-Alike for the community, non-Share-Alike for those who pay. I think this is potentially a good model for the wider community to adopt (in fact that's the model behind both OpenlyLocal and OpenCorporates -- it's also the licence adopted by OSM), as it encourages an ecosystem of like-minded organisations/people/companies, and provides a way of making them sustainable. However, I think it's a bad idea for core data produced by government, for both the reasons outlined previously and because it prevents such a community from forming.
> 
> The analogy with open-source software is that programming languages and other core tools are generally MIT or similar, while the code written with those languages are frequently GPL. We would have far less innovation, and a far poorer ecosystem, if the languages were GPL.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> OpenCorporates :: The Open Database of the Corporate World http://opencorporates.com
> OpenlyLocal :: Making Local Government More Transparent http://openlylocal.com
> Blog: http://countculture.wordpress.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/CountCulture
> 
> 
> On 17 September 2011 09:20, stef <stefan.marsiske at gmail.com> wrote:
> the SA clause is good.
> 
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 09:44:37AM +1000, Brendan Morley wrote:
> > It seems like your city wants to discriminate against the innovator
> > / entrepreneurial class.
> 
> i beg to disagree you can in fact be an innovator and honor the SA.
> 
> > Share-Alike has the effect of the author still trying to reserve its
> > rights against commercialisation of its data.
> 
> nope, it only keeps the data free and prohibits the privatization of the
> commons. which i'd say that's not innovation but robbery.
> 
> > (After all, the
> > author itself doesn't *have* to SA, only the downstream users!)
> 
> so the one creating value should not have privileges?
> 
> > Whereas non Share-Alike puts everyone on the same playing field for
> > downstream value adding.
> 
> being on the same playing field is good, no?
> 
> > I'd be interested to know why SA was considered by the city in the
> > first place.  It seems like cargo cult thinking.
> 
> pls refrain from insulting people creating values for the commons.
> 
> > depends on liberally licensed works as contributions (i.e. CC By and
> > public domain), but in turn it also allows full geodata
> > roundtripping between government-crowd-commercial.
> 
> how can you ensure roundripping back from commercial to crowd and gov without
> an SA licence? or do you mean with roundtripping gov-crowd-corporatelockin?
> 
> > Other references: http://www.ausgoal.gov.au/the-ausgoal-licence-suite -
> > "Among those, the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY) [...]
> > provides the greatest opportunities for re-use of information"
> 
> i'd like to see the study that is the foundation for this statement.
> 
> --
> gpg: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/stef.gpg
> gpg fp: F617 AC77 6E86 5830 08B8  BB96 E7A4 C6CF A84A 7140
> 
> _______________________________________________
> open-government mailing list
> open-government at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> open-government mailing list
> open-government at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20110921/8e7a800f/attachment-0001.html>