On Oct 1, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I recently blogged about the MashupAustralia competition, which was >> announced yesterday: >> >> http://blog.okfn.org/2009/10/01/australian-government-releases-open-data-for-mashupaustralia-competition/ >> >> The competition is putting out lots of open data to encourage >> innovate >> re-uses - which is great news! >> >> Lots of the data is being released under CC-BY. > > I read this yesterday and cringed. "Oh no! another contractual quest > for recognition!" > > >> On the competition >> home page, Cameron Neylon raises the question of whether this is >> appropriate for data, sparking off debate with Mia Garlick, organiser >> of competition and ex-Creative Commons counsel: >> >> http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/30/your-invitation-to-mashupaustralia/#comment-1818 >> >> Her basic argument seems to me to be that CC licenses are not "mere >> (copyright) licenses" but are also contracts - in which case CC-BY >> offers legal protection. Its seems that the rationale for doing this >> is that government departments want attribution. >> >> Would be great to have thoughts and opinions of people here! > > Give a person a hammer, and all data starts looking like an > opportunity to get attribution. > > For ages now we have been creating knowledge in academia and giving > it away, expecting, but not contractually requiring recognition. The > norms of our disciplines have ensured that ripping off someone > else's work without giving due credit gets censure that is worse > than any contractual penalty could ever be. Ask yourself -- what > would you rather? loss of face or some penalty that your contract > provides for? > > Let's look at it another way -- if you have CC-BY data, and I take > it but don't give you any attribution (because I am just a prick and > don't want to give you attribution, and because norms wash off me > like water off a duck), what is it exactly that you are going to do > to me? Come after me with what? If your data are really worth any > money, sure, bind it in a contract and wrap it in a license and > track it with a beacon to make sure you get your pound of flesh. But > otherwise, it is just pointless. > > Let's not even get into the issue that contracts apply only between > the two parties that agree to the contract. So, if you agree to the > contract with the original data provider, and then give the data to > me without any contract, heck, I am bound by no contract at all. > > Isn't it just better to let the normative processes of our > disciplines, our society and tradition, guide our actions? >
So, if not CC-BY for data then what? I should have mentioned that I am in the "use ccZero or PDDL waiver for public data" camp. Licenses are more appropriate for creative content, and contract useful when you actually want something in return *and* can enforce a payback if you don't get the return. -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science ======================================================================= _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
