Here is a response from Rufus Pollock of Open Data Commons on the [odc-discuss] list - Mike
------------------------------------ Dear All, I was forwarded an email which when to osm-legal-talk from John Wilbanks (see below) which I wanted to respond to. BTW: I'm not on osm-legal-talk so if someone who is on there wishes to forward this response back there please do. Regards, Rufus I should say these are my personal comments and I've greatest respect for John. I know that he, and SC, are strongly committed to the public domain only approach to data but this is not a view I agree with -- as he knows well. Just as we permit attribution and share-alike in "open" content and code licenses I think it is reasonable to do so in "open" data licenses. Of course, communities may wish to go down a particular route -- in code. for example, Python stdlib code is always under a very liberal MIT-type license while the linux kernel goes for GPL -- but I feel that is a choice for a community and not one that should be taken a priori by a decision that PD is the "only way". To respond on some of John's specific comments: 1. We want participation from all communities. At the same time I don't understand why publishing license requires consulting with everyone prior to release. The original GPL and CC licenses did not have to wait to consult with every possible user community before publishing them. Waiting to consult with everyone possible is a recipe for never doing anything. (I'd also add: If the license is not suited for some particular community they don't have to use it!) 2. More comment/discussion time. I think it is virtual certainty this will occur. At the same time I'd point out that these licenses have been out and circulating for over a year a half [1] and that it often takes some kind of a deadline to get proper responses. I'd also point out there will, undoubtedly be future updates as there have been with CC licenses, the GPL etc. [1]:<http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/2007/09/seeking_a_licence_for_open_dat.php> 3. Interested parties from other communities (such as John) should probably post here rather than e.g. on OSM's lists as, I would imagine, OSM lists want to stay focus on the relation of the license to OSM. Similarly, John seems unhappy about the fact that the OSM working group consists of people from OSM -- but why shouldn't it? Other communities concerned with the ODbL should get involved with Open Data Commons not with OSM (who would imagine have their own concerns)! We'd welcome representation from other interested communities on the ODC lists -- and, as appropriate, on the ODC Advisory Council who are the group ultimately responsible for the licenses. 4. Other communities interested in the ODbL. I'd start by pointing out that the original work on the ODbL was done for Talis who mainly work with library data (bibliographic records). That original draft, done before the PDDL or CCZero, included SA and attribution provisions. 4 years ago (back in early 2005) I remember being involved in an early attempt to draft a license for geodata which would have been promoted to the Ordnance Survey (this was going to be an adaptation of CC by-sa or, and non-openly, CC by-nc-sa). Since then I've encountered several communities using CC by-sa or something similar for data. I'd also mention that much of the time, at the moment, those providing data don't think about the license at all (so the issue is moot). 5. I don't see the ODbL or any other open license as enclosing the public domain (just as I don't see the CC licenses or the GPL as enclosing the public domain). If material is in the PD it remains in the PD -- no license can change that. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Wilbanks <[email protected]> Date: 23 March 2009 13:44:05 GMT To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <[email protected]> > But open data is much more than just science and education. It's more > than OSM; it's more than maps. The assiduous > how-late-is-my-sodding-train-today people on our town website, forIn terms of > license choice where that is relevant I feel > example, are creating a database that could potentially be licensed > openly. Well put. Then let's open up the license working group to science and education and OSM and more. Then let's do a real analysis of the environmental impact of the license on other communities where the PD is already working and could be enclosed by an "open" database license. Then let's have more than a short window of comment time. But as far as I can tell, this is an OSM driven event. I don't know anyone outside OSM as a community rep that's on the working group. Yet it's being called an Open Database License for cross-community use. We spent about three years working on this across a range of scientific disciplines. CC has analyzed it in the context of education and culture. We came to the PD conclusion. OSM doesn't want to go PD - that's fine, in the end. But when you call the license written by and for a streetmapping community a solution for the rest of the world when the DBs and norms involved vary so much...well, it's odd to then get mad when the rest of the world comes in and comments on it. Your community cares more about reciprocity than interoperability. That's fine and dandy for you. But you're proposing to promote your solution, a complex one engineered and tuned for you, as something that is a generic solution *without doing the research* as to how it will work in generic situations. That's not fine and dandy. I am unaware of a single community other than OSM looking at this license. I've asked OKF and got the null response. Does anyone here know of another? I'd really like to know. Trust me, I have a lot of other things to do with my time. But as long as this license gets promoted as a generic solution for "open data" it gets debated inside science, and that has the direct consequence of enclosing the public domain in my space. My job is to prevent that. If the name could simply be changed I would have a lot less problems here... jtw _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
