Download to read offline
![[E]nabling the true potential of public sector information
(PSI) requires a cross-border and cross-sectoral approach
to licensing. Globally successful licensing suites such as
(even
Creative Commons show that this is possible
though the CC-licences might not
always be appropriate for licensing
PSI due to the different national
interpretations of the originality
requirements under copyright
regulation and the existence of
specific rights such as the EU sui
generis database right).
Dr. Katleen Janssen
Share-PSI workshop position paper 15](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/linksvayer-110513141104-phpapp01/85/Linksvayer-15-320.jpg)
![[E]nabling the true potential of public sector information
(PSI) requires a cross-border and cross-sectoral approach
to licensing. Globally successful licensing suites such as
(even
Creative Commons show that this is possible
though the CC-licences might not
always be appropriate for licensing
PSI due to the different national
interpretations of the originality
requirements under copyright
regulation and the existence of
specific rights such as the EU sui
generis database right).
Dr. Katleen Janssen
Share-PSI workshop position paper 15](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/linksvayer-110513141104-phpapp01/75/Linksvayer-15-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byePSI Platform
Linksvayer
This document summarizes a presentation on license interoperability for public sector information (PSI) reuse. It discusses how open source software and open content have progressed toward interoperable licensing over the past 25+ years, but challenges remain including incompatible copyleft licenses and a proliferation of custom licenses. Key initiatives like Creative Commons and Open Knowledge Foundation are working to address these issues and promote consensus licensing principles that only include open terms to facilitate greater interoperability and reuse of PSI. Upcoming milestones that could impact licensing include events focused on the EU's digital agenda and open knowledge.
More Related Content
Linksvayer
- 1. Towards License Interoperability: Patternsof Sustainable Sharing Policy Share-PSI.eu Workshop: Removing the roadblocks to a pan European market for Public Sector Information re-use Mike Linksvayer 2011-05-11 / Brussels 1
- 2. Without interoperability re-use is a struggle #!€? flickr.com/photos/dcoetzee/3566415826/ · CC0 2
- 3. flickr.com/photos/dcoetzee/3566410256/ · CC0 Withinteroperability re-use is open to the curious citizen. 3
- 4. FLOSS: 25+ yearstoward interoperability 4
- 5. FLOSS: discovery concerningwhat 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! 5
- 6. FLOSS: making legalinteroperability reality Early proliferation of licenses, many vanity, much incompatibility GPL long dominant license; most licenses unused; other important licenses GPL-compatible after much effort (e.g., Apache2, forthcoming MPL2) 6
- 7. FLOSS: deepening expertise, community,public sector involvement Well of legal and policy knowledge concerning FLOSS FSF in unique position as GPL steward, but small part of ecosystem Activists, analysts, communities, corporations, developers, governments, NGOs, platforms 7
- 8. FLOSS: ongoing Patents, networkservices, project governance, contributor agreements, public license compliance, regulatory, procurement, funder policy, software mixing with non- software, etc. Many challenges, but significant capacity to meet them: sustainable sharing 8
- 9. Open content: 10+years toward interoperability 9
- 10. Open content: whatworks for field? Similar to FLOSS (see Definition of Free Cultural Works, Open Knowledge Definition) for building a commons, though not everyone realizes this yet. Legalizing non-commercial only, verbatim sharing still socially valuable relative to default (attacks on Internet largely concern this), but distinct from open. 10
- 11. Open content: licensedeproliferation Early (1998-2001) licenses niche-centric, most prominently Open Content/Publication Licenses, FSF Free Documentation License, EFF Open Audio License, but many others OCL/OPL steward recommended using CC licenses; EFF created one-way compatibility from OAL to BY-SA; FSF created narrow one- way compatibility from FDL to BY-SA to allow Wikipedia to migrate Surprising and good lack of vanity licenses 11
- 12. Open content /Open data / PSI Adoption taking off in past couple years Various Creative Commons licenses, CC0 PDDL, ODC-BY, ODbL OGL and similar semi-custom instruments Ad hoc licensing or no licensing 12
- 13. 4 sources ofinteroperability challenges Incompatible open licenses (primarily copyleft) Proliferation of semi-custom terms Use of non-open public licenses (e.g., NonCommercial, NoDerivatives) No attempt to be open 13
- 14. The UK wasable to draw on the work of public sector colleagues in Australia and New Zealand. Both countries have launched policies designed to open up government and make PSI more readily available for re-use. They did this through the adoption of Creative Commons model licences. The UK, however, decided to develop a new licence – the The main reason for Open Government Licence. this was that none of the existing Creative Commons licences extended to the licensing of works protected by the database right. Jim Wretham Share-PSI workshop position paper 14
- 15. [E]nabling the truepotential of public sector information (PSI) requires a cross-border and cross-sectoral approach to licensing. Globally successful licensing suites such as (even Creative Commons show that this is possible though the CC-licences might not always be appropriate for licensing PSI due to the different national interpretations of the originality requirements under copyright regulation and the existence of specific rights such as the EU sui generis database right). Dr. Katleen Janssen Share-PSI workshop position paper 15
- 16. Sui Generis databaserights inadequately addressed in CC licenses Also the reason for creation of ODbL (incompatible copyleft) To be fixed in version 4.0 of CC licenses 16
- 17. Incompatible copyleft licenses difficultto resolve Necessary: databases and content not separate magisteria; even if they were, much use of CC BY-SA for databases CC and OKFn committed to resolution FLOSS and open content experience gives hope, suggests solutions Do not want this to be a legacy issue holding back field for years! 17
- 18. Strong expressions ofdemand from public sector for interoperability Italian Open Data License explicitly compatible with CC BY-SA and ODbL OGL “aligned to be interoperable” with CC BY and ODC-BY 18
- 19. Addressing other concernsdriving creation of new PSI licenses Preference for licensing frameworks over new licenses Explain use of standard open licenses in PSI context Keep incompatible terms out of license, maintaining clear interoperability 19
- 20.
- 21.
- 22. Key initiatives (CC,OKFn, and you) Work on interoperability Articulate and promote consensus licensing principles for PSI: only open terms (per OKD) Reduce other proliferation, e.g., with licensing frameworks Collaborate on adoption, capacity building 22
- 23. Precision concerning “interoperability” Directional compatibility(one-way or bilateral) License stewards not only actors: many interoperability gains achieved by communities/projects/institutions choosing or migrating wisely 23
- 24. Key upcoming milestones DigitalAgenda (16-17 June, Brussels) OKCon (30 June-1 July, Berlin) CC Global meeting (16-18 September, Warsaw) 24
- 25. Legal interoperability challenges notall bad Contributes to deepening of knowledge concerning open licensing, crucial for long term adoption and problem avoidance. Still, market confusion bad. Interoperable open licenses should be given, in the background. 25
- 26. links: convey yourselfto http://share-psi.eu/papers/CreativeCommons.pdf (Patterns of Sustainable Sharing Policy, workshop position paper) http://creativecommons.org (Creative Commons NGO) 26