[Open-transport] Semi-open (non free for commercial use) data

Sat May 3 23:20:58 UTC 2014

On 02.05.2014 22:52, Stéphane Guidoin wrote:

> So questions to the wisdom of the group:
> - Does anybody have some example of two-tiers licences

I am not aware of any such an example in Europe.

> - If yes, does anybody had a look to the boundary of "commercial" (e.g
> does a web-app with some ads is commercial?).
>
> To me the definition of "commercial" is not very well defined when it
> comes to open data.

Exactly. This has been an ongoing controversy for _years_ within the 
Creative Commons licensing model. See for instance 
<http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655>, or 
<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial>.

I agree with Pieter and Stefan dK on focusing on SLA rather than trying 
to define “commercial”.

In my opinion, however, the discussion about the IP status of schedules 
is more than just academic. The whole principle of applying CC or ODbL 
licenses hinges around the fact that an IP holder _can_ apply them to 
work they have intellectual property rights over – which is questionable 
when talking about transit schedules[1].

Unfortunately, <http://simia.net/wiki/Free_data> appears to be down 
right now, but I like the approach outlined in that article[2]: If you 
want data to be reused, attach the CC-0 license to it, and _only_ do so 
because you want everybody to know they can use it however they want to; 
_not_ because you think you can exert IP rights over them. Most likely, 
you don't. And you shouldn't.

regards,
-stk

[1] I can only speak for Germany, which is based on a completely 
different IP rights system than the Canadian one (droit d'auteur vs. 
copyright), but my interpretation of FoPS 70825 is that transit schedule 
data does not meet the requirements to achieve IP status.

[2] The excerpt I still have here:
> The extension from works to content, from expression to ideas, is another dimension, this time in scope instead of time, in the continuous struggle to extend and expand intellectual property rights. It is not just a battle over the laws, but also, and more importantly, over our believes and minds, to make us more accepting towards the notion that ideas and knowledge belong to companies and individuals, and are not part of our commons.
>
> Every time data is published under a restrictive license, “they” have managed to conquer another strategic piece of territory. Restrictive in this case includes CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, GFDL, ODBL, and (god forbid!) CC-BY-SA-NC-ND, and many other such licenses.
>
> Every time you wonder what license some data has that you want to use, or whether you need to ask the data publisher if you can use it, “they” have won another battle.
>
> Every time you integrate two data sources and want to publish the results, and start to wonder how to fulfill your legal obligation towards the original dataset publishers, “they” laugh and welcome you as a member of their fifth column.
>
> Let them win, and some day you will be sued for mentioning a number.