[Open-transport] Semi-open (non free for commercial use) data
stephane at opennorth.ca
Mon May 5 16:20:47 UTC 2014
Thanks for you input guys!
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Stefan Kaufmann <transit at shutterworks.org>wrote:
> 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 <
> 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.
> Unfortunately, <http://simia.net/wiki/Free_data> appears to be down right
> now, but I like the approach outlined in that article: 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.
>  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.
>  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.
> open-transport mailing list
> open-transport at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-transport
Twitter: @opennorth / @hoedic
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-transport