Licensing data aggregates


(Michael Maier) #22

It does deliver not CC, but ODbL data.

If we want do import in OSM, for every data-source the contributers must agree on the OSM contributer terms - or be PD which states “do anything you want with the data”.

This is because CC-BY data requires an attribution for every use case, but OSM cannot guarantee that because of the space-limit on every map produced.


(Josef Kreitmayer) #23

Could you post a PD-Agreement or a link to one. We will need that for the agreement with the data-contributing SSEDAS partners.


(Michael Maier) #24

The most legal-proof version of releasing a work under PD is probably to use the CC-0 waiver .

In short, the contributor has to agree that his contribution of data does not infringe the intellectual property rights of anyone else and he has the the right to release his data as Public Domain.


(Josef Kreitmayer) #25

@species, can we simply copy paste that content to use it in our license agreement for the SSEDAS partners?


(Michael Maier) #26

With the CC-0 license text, we are on the safe side, yes.


(Richard) #27

I’m not sure if my lately statement proper.
For all Databases or Datarecords or simple List, is my suggestion to use Open Database License (ODbL). For TEXT,AUDIO is suggest free as possible like CC BY. (I would prefer a Copyleft with -SA)

But we shall think about that, in the europanien context there is no “Public Domain”, and as far as i know (AFAIK) not possible to say: there is no Urheber.

I hope it not a doppy comment of mine.
lg
R.


(Michael Maier) #28

I am actually not a fan of ODbL, because it is Share-Alike. And Share-Alike means, ODbL data is incompatible with other Share-Alike data … like ODbL :wink:
(This is because you cannot feed data from a dataset which requires the creator to be mentioned (TransforMap?) into another one that also require its (different!) creator to be mentioned (e.g. OpenStreetMap)).


(Jon Richter) #29

@bhaugen How could an open value network help out here? I have the strange impression we can use commons-based reciprocity licences to find a way to keep the author’s lineage associated.

#blockchain


(Bhaugen) #30

I’m trying to parse the discussion. Looks like it’s about licenses. I don’t know how OVNs determine which license to use for what, but maybe I"m missing something.

are in flux. See https://www.loomio.org/g/k2tbKYwV/p2p-foundation-projects-cbrls

But the basic idea is that if your project is part of the “ethical economy” and are willing to reciprocate, you may freely use such licensed assets. Explained more in the FAQ mentioned in this thread: https://www.loomio.org/d/cqLt6v2J/seeking-input-copyfair-faq-and-outrreach-document

The other related thing I have seen in OVN discussions is nondominium agreements:
http://p2pfoundation.net/Nondominium

As far as I know, they are agreements between parties, and may register copyrights etc with a custodian.

But I have no direct experience with either of those forms.


(Bhaugen) #31

Lynn thinks you may be asking more about tracing contribution history than licenses. If so, https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows may help once we get it baked more. It is about tracing flows of value of all kinds through many input-process-output and transfer chains.


(Thomas Kalka) #32

It should it be possible to link to all data sources a data set depends on, including their licenses ?
Nevertheless, share alike should be compatible for a license issuer change, the attribution clause is more difficult.


(Josef Kreitmayer) #33

From a today conversation about the SSEDAS data, I am not sure, if a fully open license is a good option to start with, as I am not sure, how qualified the data is, that individuals contribute, and if it can be validated to be of public ownership.

The special question I got is, how it is about deletion? What if someone is mapped, that does not want that. If it is public domain, it can also be copied in full, and then not be taken back, or am I wrong? What is possibilites to take it back, once it is published, and there is complaint?


(Adrien Labaeye) #34

This is what I called the “liability & control” dilemma in our paper. This is the reason why http://mundraub.de doesn’t license its data. See ‘Rules’ at Field report #3:
They want to retain the privilege to remove data if someone complains. This is a key issue that need to be discussed and addressed with pragmatic solution in another thread I think.


(Jon Richter) #35

There is also http://apicommons.org/ for machine readable statements about licensing of data published via an API.

Additionally, Open Definition 2.1 is now a bit stricter regarding freedom of use:

[…]

What’s New

[…]
The new 1.4 Open Format section has been strengthened such that in order to be considered open, the work has to be able to be both in a format which places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise and it has to be able to be fully processed by at least one free/libre/open-source software tool. In version 2.0 only one of these conditions was needed to satisfy the requirement.
[…]


(Josef Kreitmayer) #36

What exactly is that legaly?
Is that a kind of license?


(Josef Kreitmayer) #37

What would that other thread be?


(Jon Richter) #38

Which of the two things mentioned in the quote above your questions do you refer to? Choose one:

  • [ ] API Commons
  • [ ] Open Definition

Thanks in advance.

I bet it just doesn’t exist, yet, so apparently you are free to create it. Often we leave notes with loose ends in digitized cooperation, so others can take over once we dissapear, don’t find time or muse anymore to go back, get killed, etc.


(Michael Maier) #42

We (monkeys) have agreed that we don’t delete data in our databases (to preserve history). We only mark it as deleted (or obsolete). So when we publish our database as open data, everyone (with a little bit of skill) can look up deleted data.

This is such a big topic, it is worth a discussion thread alone. It leads to the point that “facts are not copyright-able”. The OSM view on this topic is: “If it is there on the ground and visible to the public, no one can forbid us to map it.” (But you can always mark the POI private access only.)
So if we have a map with e.g. all fair-trade shops, we cannot prevent users to add a specific shop, if it fits in the category and exists in reality (when we use an open system).

You’re right. You cannot delete information from the Internet - regardless from the license! Even if you publish something with © You, you CANNOT prevent the ‘bad guys’ from making a copy and release it on Wikileaks.

I know it is hard to digest - but with publishing data on the Internet (regardless of the license), you enter the Post-Privacy Era. There is no possibility to take it back. You can never be sure that a search engine or the Internet Archive hasn’t indexed the content yet and made a backup somewhere you have no legal access to.

This is my personal opinion, very black-and-white. It depends which kind of data someone wants to protect. I would agree to have different licenses to different kinds of data. E.g. some CC-BY for images, PD for geodata. How to handle contact data is a BIG question.

I think we should start a licence working group :smile:


(Josef Kreitmayer) #43

I think, that is a great idea!


(Jon Richter) #44

Isn’t the Vocabularies and Data circle (badgers) exactly the conversation space you are asking for?
Also known as “Taxonomy Group”?
What I am missing for a while is the exchange between different conversation circles. Because there are not so many left.

Let’s not imagine thousands of working groups or categories, if we don’t have the organizational capacity to fill them with appropriate, meaningful and high quality content.