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

[Yishay Mor]

thanks. excellent summary. just one clarification:
If I put my data on the web, with a note attached saying: "you are free to
use this data in any way you please." that, for me, is a license. A very
open, simple, public domain license. If I use data from any source, I want
to know the terms under which I am allowed to use it. That's why I want to
see a license statement.
I'm happy to see commercial exploitation of my work, as long as it doesn't
prohibit future non-commercial use, or future commercial use for that
matter.

___________________________
 Yishay Mor, Researcher, London Knowledge Lab
  http://www.lkl.ac.uk/people/mor.html
  http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=yishaym%40gmail.com
  +44-20-78378888 x5737


2009/2/6 Neylon <cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk>

> Yishay, I am afraid it isn¹t short but I¹ve tried to summarise:
>
> http://blog.openwetware.org/scienceintheopen/2009/02/06/licenses-and-protoco
> ls-for-open-science-the-debate-continues/<http://blog.openwetware.org/scienceintheopen/2009/02/06/licenses-and-protoco%0Als-for-open-science-the-debate-continues/>
>
> This is an important discussion that has been going on in disparate places,
> but primarily at the moment is on the Open Science mailing list maintained
> by the OKF. To try and keep things together and because Yishay Mor asked, I
> thought I would try to summarize the current state of the debate.
>
> The key aim here is to find a form of practice that will enhance data
> availability, and protect it into the future.
>
> There is general agreement that there is a need for some sort of
> declaration
> associated with making data available. Clarity is important and the minimum
> here would be a clear statement of intention.
>
> Where there is disagreement is over what form this should take. Rufus
> Pollock started by giving the reasons why this should be a formal license.
> Rufus believes that a license provides certainty and clarity in a way that
> a
> protocol, statement of principles, or expression of community standards can
> not.  I, along with Bill Hooker and John Wilbanks [links are to posts on
> mailing list], expressed a concern that actually the use of legal language,
> and the notion of ³ownership² of this by lawyers rather than scientists
> would have profound negative results. Andy Powell points out that this did
> not seem to occur either in the Open Source movement or with much of the
> open content community. But I believe he also hits the nail on the head
> with
> the possible reason:
>
> "I suppose the difference is that software space was already burdened with
> heavily protective licences and that the introduction of open licences was
> perceived as a step in the right direction, at least by those who like that
> kind of thing."
>
> Scientific data has a history of being assumed to be in public domain (see
> the lack of any license at PDB or Genbank or most other databases) so there
> isn¹t the same sense of pushing back from an existing strong IP or
> licensing
> regime. However I think there is broad agreement that this protocol or
> statement would look a lot like a license and would aim to have the legal
> effect of at least providing clarity over the rights of users to copy,
> re-purpose, and fork the objects in question.
>
> Michael Nielsen and John Wilbanks have expressed a concern about the
> potential for license proliferation and incompatibility. Michael cites the
> example of Apache, Mozilla, and GPL2 licenses. This feeds into the issue of
> the acceptability, or desirability of share-alike provisions which is an
> area of significant division. Heather Morrison raises the issue of dealing
> with commercial entities who may take data and use technical means to
> effectively take it out of the public domain, citing the takeover of
> OAIster
> by OCLC as a potential example.
>
> This is a real area of contention I think because some of us (including me)
> would see this in quite a positive light (data being used effectively in a
> commercial setting is better than it not being used at all) as long as the
> data is still both legally and technically in the public domain. Indeed
> this
> is at the core of the power of a public domain declaration. The issue of
> finding the resources that support the preservation of research objects in
> the (accessible) public domain is a separate one but in my view if we don¹t
> embrace the idea that money can and should be made off data placed in the
> public domain then we are going to be in big trouble sooner or later
> because
> the money will simply run out.
>
> On the flip side of the argument is a strong tradition of arguing that
> viral
> licensing and share alike provisions protect the rights and personal
> investment of individuals and small players against larger commercial
> entities. Many of the people who support open data belong to this
> tradition,
> often for very good historical reasons. I personally don¹t disagree with
> the
> argument on a logical level, but I think for scientific data we need to
> provide clear paths for commercial exploitation because using science to do
> useful things costs a lot of money. If you want people want to invest in
> using the outputs of publicly funded research you need to provide them with
> the certainty that they can legitimately use that data within their current
> business practice. I think it is also clear that those of us who take this
> line need to come up with a clear and convincing way of expressing this
> argument because it is at the centre of the objection to ³protection² via
> licenses and share alike provisions.
>
> Finally Yishay brings us back to the main point. Something to keep focussed
> on:
>
> "I may be off the mark, but I would argue that there¹s a general principle
> to consider here. I hold that any data collected by public money should be
> made freely available to the public, for any use that contributes to the
> public good. Strikes me as a no-brainer, but of course - we have a long way
> to go. If we accept this principle, the licensing follows."
>
> Obviously I don¹t agree with the last sentence - I would say that
> dedication
> to the public domain follows - but the principle I think is something we
> can
> agree that we are aiming for.
>
>
> On 6/2/09 12:00, "Yishay Mor" <yishaym at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I may be off the mark, but I would argue that there's a general principle
> to
> > consider here. I hold that any data collected by public money should be
> made
> > freely available to the public, for any use that contributes to the
> public
> > good. Strikes me as a no-brainer, but of course - we have a long way to
> go. If
> > we accept this principle, the licensing follows.
>
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20090206/51b4260c/attachment-0001.html>