LAPSI: legal interoperability updated

Ad Hoc Licences,
Dominant License Models and
(the Lack of) Interoperability

federico.morando@gmail.com

slides available under a CC0 license/waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Introduction:
License Interoperability for Dummies
(from an OGDC presentation)

legal interoperability in 1 slide
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability
● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ decent interoperability

● Share-Alike licenses


problems uncertainty



lawyers



;-) lawyers

Can we say much more?
(Yes, of course!
But the policy implications
do not change that much.)

(Data) License Landscape
● (FLOSS Licenses used for data)
● Creative Commons Licenses
● standard general purpose CC licenses
– BY; (SA); [NC]; {ND}
– 3.0 EU licenses (waiving sui generis database right)
● CC0 waiver (with fallback clauses → broad license)
● Open Data Commons Licenses
● for (open) data only
– PD dedication (with license fallback), BY or SA (first to be produced, targeting communities)
● National (open government) data licenses
● UK: OGL (BY +)
● FR: License Ouverte (BY +)
● IT: IODL (beta ver.: BY-SA-NC +; 1.0: BY-SA +; 2.0: BY +)
● ...

National licenses & std worries
● UK OGL, Italian Open Data License (IODL),
etc.
● ensure [or “take all reasonable steps so”] that you
do not use the Information in a way that suggests
any official status...
● ensure that you do not mislead others or
misrepresent the Information or its source...
● ensure that your use of the Information does not
breach the Data Protection Act...

License Ouverte &
Privacy Concerns
● The French LO adopts an interesting solution about
several “standard worries”
● section “About the Open Licence” at the end of the
document
● description of relevant “facts” (instead of clauses)
– Information which contains personal data is not considered to
be public sector information re-usable under the terms of
French Law – except where persons on which data is collected
have agreed to its reuse, where this data has been rendered
anonymous by the public sector bodies, or where a legal or
statutory provision permits its re-use (in these three cases, re-
use is subject to compliance with French privacy protection
legislation).

Non-Commercial Reminder
● (luckily) this is an “endangered clause” in the PSI domain
● yet, the NC debate characterizes the first phases of
most re-use initiatives
● de facto, the NC licenses are only compatible with other
NC licenses
● always remind (to your Government) some basic things
● Non-Commercial → no (standard) business models
● NC also → no (open) communities
– impossible to re-use for non-profit groups including
Wikimedia/Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, etc.
● oversimplifying: Non-Commercial → NO Wikipedia

Various approaches
to interoperability
● OGL FAQs
● information can be mixed and re-purposed easily with
other licence models requiring attribution in that the
terms of the Open Government Licence should
not present any barriers
● LO
● interoperability clause in the main text
● IODL
● 1.0 (SA): interoperability clause in the main text
● 2.0 (BY): OGL-like solution (FAQs)

A View on License Complexity
● Preliminary attempt
● given the original license
– on the lines
● can I use a given standard license for a “derivative” work/DB?
– on the columns

The Problem
● You may have different interpretations
● several issues have been oversimplified
– including the licensed rights!
● copyright vs. sui generis
● database vs. content (“data”)

The Problem
● You may have different interpretations
● several issues have been oversimplified
– including the licensed rights!
● copyright vs. sui generis
● database vs. content (“data”)

This is the best proof of existence of a
serious problem!

give to © what is ©'s
● © licenses do not cover non-© aspects
● e.g. privacy, trademarks
● sometimes, that's paradoxical, but...

➔ Governments may ensure (©)interoperability if
they address non-© worries with other tools
● notices satisfying any taste
✔ privacy notices
– various disclaimers
● “don't violate the law”
● “be kind”

➔ Governments may ensure (©)interoperability if
they address non-© worries with other tools
● notices satisfying any taste
✔ privacy notices
– various disclaimers
● “don't violate the law”
● “be kind” ↔ soft law could substitute most stupid license clauses

Tentative Conclusion
● don't use ©-license to address privacy and
similar worries
● if you advise Gov. (or work within the Gov.)
● don't produce a custom license
● produce a custom licensing framework
– using standard © license
● e.g. New Zealand Government Open Access and
Licensing (NZGOAL) framework

Conclusion (Hope)
● it's a learning process
● e.g. FLOSS
● ¼ Century to achive (decent) interoperability
● Mike Linksvayer (CC):
– FLOSS: discovery concerning what works for field Early
confusion on libre vs gratis Early non-commercial
licenses, including first release of Linux kernel
– Now, people who put first freedom (e.g., Stallman),
development (e.g., Torvalds), and profit (corporations)
~agree on what free/open means
– Amazing!

(for the records)
● national sector specific laws
– e.g. cultural heritage law
● potentially severe impact on licensing choices
– e.g. Non-Commercial or No-Derivatives licenses
● and interoperability consequences

LAPSI: legal interoperability updated

More Related Content

Similar to LAPSI: legal interoperability updated

More from Federico Morando

Recently uploaded

LAPSI: legal interoperability updated