[open-science] Openness and Licensing of (Open) Data

[Rufus Pollock]

As your comments are going to be public on your blog soon, hope you
won't mind me cc'ing the open-science mailing list on this.

2009/2/4 Michael Nielsen <mnielsen at perimeterinstitute.ca>:
[snip]

> I think it's an excellent article, and agree with a great deal in it.
> However, there are three basic points at which I feel we have some
> disagreement:
>
> (1) I think the article underrates the problems that may be caused by
> licensing incompatibilities - witness all the problems this has caused in
> the open source world, where the commons has fragmented;

There have been occasions where license incompatibilities have been an
issue but I am not sure I'd agree that the 'commons has fragmented' in
open source. Do you have specific cases in mind?

> (2) I think the article takes for granted that scientists are going to want
> open licenses.  I don't see that this is necessarily true, certainly if
> current norms are encoded in the license; and

I quite agree with you so I think there's a misunderstanding! I'm not
sure either that many scientists or other scholars will -- at least at
the beginning. 5 years experience of talking with people on this has
definitely taught me that :)

The question I would ask to you here: if encoding current norms
regarding data in licenses is a problem then encoding them in explicit
community norms is also a problem (and if we're not explicit there are
going to be serious problems ...).

> (3) the article implicitly assumes that the license (not the norm) is how
> enforcement will be handled, yet I think there is little evidence to suggest
> that this is true in academic science, where norms are far more often the
> remedy of choice.

Let's be clear: most open licenses whether in software, content or
anywhere else aren't 'enforced' (and won't be enforced) by recourse to
the courts. Like norms licenses will be primarily enforced by social
pressure. Saying use licenses isn't saying: let's settle all our
disputes in courts! Much of the time a license is just a way to make
explicit what the 'social contract'. But it has the added advantage of
potentially being enforceable against those who might ignore the
social norms (I give other reasons in the essay so won't rehash them
again here).

So again perhaps there is a misunderstanding: I see (open) licenses as
a convenient and explicit encoding of what people can do with stuff
(with the added advantage that, in extremis they are 'legally'
enforceable).

Lastly, I should emphasize that I'm assuming throughout here that
we're talking about licensing for 'data' -- *not* about the governance
of the community as a whole, which, though partially related, is a
different and much larger matter.

Regards,

Rufus