[open-government] Deciphering licensing in Project Open Data

Thu May 23 15:06:42 UTC 2013

On 05/23/2013 10:45 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
 > One major question, that perhaps you could clarify on, is the status 
of Federal data *outside* the US.

Hey, Rufus.

I think you're right that federal government data born into the public 
domain here would not necessarily be public domain in other countries.

But I doubt that question occurred to the White House, and frankly it's 
really not on the radar among open data advocates here either. In fact, 
we're leaning slightly in a different direction. Eric Mill has suggested 
that CC0 *not* be applied to U.S. public domain data because it may 
misleadingly imply that the data needed a PD dedication in the first 
place. But, again, the copyright status in other countries hasn't ever 
been a consideration. If we added that consideration Eric might propose 
something a little different.

> I also wonder if it is hoped the guidance will inform non-Federal 
> government entities at the state and local level?

Modulo licensing, I hope it does. Most of the rest of the memorandum is 
very good. But the public domain exception for federal data doesn't 
apply to the states so it gets more complicated (and, from my point of 
view, more dangerous).

- Josh Tauberer (@JoshData)

http://razor.occams.info

On 05/23/2013 10:45 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> One major question, that perhaps you could clarify on, is the status 
> of Federal data *outside* the US. While I understand the idea that is 
> public domain in the US does this also mean it is public domain 
> everywhere else (or can a US Federal entity asserts rights in data 
> outside the US)?
>
> If the latter this would still require a clear "public domain 
> dedication or license". I also wonder if it is hoped the guidance will 
> inform non-Federal government entities at the state and local level?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rufus
>
>
> On 23 May 2013 04:02, Josh Tauberer <tauberer at govtrack.us 
> <mailto:tauberer at govtrack.us>> wrote:
>
>     To add on to this and clarify what Timothy wrote about in that
>     post,  the memorandum is almost entirely incoherent on the subject
>     of licensing, and in three ways.
>
>     First, it says that agencies should use open licenses for all
>     data, period. Data produced by the federal government is typically
>     not subject to copyright protection. You can't license something
>     you don't own. If agencies began attempting to create "open
>     licenses" for public domain data, we are going to be in a lot of
>     trouble. (Data produced by government contractors is subject to
>     copyright protection, which is a major loophole in our copyright law.)
>
>     Second, every place where it mentions "open license" it says
>     something like "an open license that places no restriction on
>     use." That's a *stronger* policy than simply open license. That is
>     to say, I think the memorandum is pretty clear in requiring
>     agencies to use a license that is *both* OKD-style open *as well
>     as* placing no restrictions on use. The only "license" that I know
>     of that does that is CC0 (or the PDDL).
>
>     Third, the memorandum directs agencies to consult the Project Open
>     Data (POD) github account for implementation advice, but the POD
>     site portrays the policy as if "no restrictions on use" were not
>     in the memorandum. So, again, it's incredibly unclear what the
>     White House intended.
>
>     Here in the U.S. we have unusually, if not uniquely, strong norms
>     about the government not interfering with public knowledge.
>     Propaganda is illegal. Freedom of the press is incredibly strong
>     (recent events notwithstanding). Requiring attribution to the
>     government, for instance, which might sound reasonable elsewhere,
>     would be a major policy shift with significant legal implications
>     for the press. "No restrictions on use" is our baseline. The
>     consensus in the open data community here has long been that open
>     government data is not "open" (in the sense of the OKD) but
>     license-free. Even though "open license" sounds great, it's
>     actually a step away from freedom.
>
>     I've written more on this here:
>
>     http://razor.occams.info/blog/2013/05/09/new-open-data-memorandum-almost-defines-open-data-misses-mark-with-open-licenses/
>
>
>     - Josh Tauberer (@JoshData)
>
>     http://razor.occams.info
>
>     On 05/22/2013 02:02 PM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>>     Thought this might be of interest:
>>
>>     Deciphering licensing in Project Open Data
>>     http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/38316
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     Jonathan Gray
>>
>>     Director of Policy and Ideas  | **@jwyg <https://twitter.com/jwyg>**
>>
>>     TheOpen Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>
>>
>>     *
>>
>>     Empowering through Open Knowledge
>>
>>     okfn.org <http://okfn.org/> | @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> |
>>     OKF on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |Blog
>>     <http://blog.okfn.org/> |Newsletter
>>     <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>
>>
>>     *
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     open-government mailing list
>>     open-government at lists.okfn.org  <mailto:open-government at lists.okfn.org>
>>     http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
>>     Unsubscribe:http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-government
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     open-government mailing list
>     open-government at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-government at lists.okfn.org>
>     http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
>     Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-government
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *
>
> **Rufus Pollock**
>
> **Founder and Co-Director | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock 
> <https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>**
>
> **The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>**
>
> **Empowering through Open Knowledge**
>
> **http://okfn.org/| @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN>| OKF on Facebook 
> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>| Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/> | 
> Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>*
> **

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20130523/4a98252b/attachment-0001.html>