Standardization and License Interoperability: a Glocal Perspective

Open Public Sector Information: Time for a New ParadigmAula Magna dell'Univeristà di Torino

July 9-10, 2012

federico.morando@gmail.com

Nexa Center for Internet & Society, Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN (http://nexa.polito.it)LAPSI - The European Thematic Network on Legal Aspects of PSI (http://www.lapsi-project.eu/)

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

foreword

as long as a public sector body makes its (relevant) data available online in machine

readable format and with a license allowing for commercial re-use, it has my blessing as an open

data activist

foreword

as long as a public sector body makes its (relevant) data available online in machine

readable format and with a license allowing for commercial re-use, it has my blessing as an open

data activist

but you can always do better!

legal interoperability

possibility of (legally) mixing data coming from different sources (e.g. government data, UGC,

corporate data)

legal interoperability

possibility of (legally) mixing data coming from different sources (e.g. government data, UGC,

corporate data)and using them within a broad range of projects

and business (and community) models

agenda

1) why (do we care)?

2) © law → open data need “licenses”

3) (hence) legal interoperability (is an issue)

4) a bird's-eye view on license interop.

5) best practices and missed opportunities

6) conclusion

the ultimate goal

mix data, re-use them in unexpected ways, be able to experiment and be quick

and (legally) certain

perceived legal interoperability

it's not just a matter of theoretical possibilities

people (and software developers in particular) need to be sure about legal interoperability

without asking their lawyers(and, ideally, without reading too many licenses)

perceived legal interoperability

it's not just a matter of theoretical possibilities

people (and software developers in particular) need to be sure about legal interoperability

without asking their lawyers(and, ideally, without reading too many licenses)

(and, ideally, almost without reading any license, because search engines and pieces of software

can assist them)

we don't want people to read many licenses, so...

is no-license a good license?

the legal background

“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &

including sui generis database right, etc.)

the legal background

“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &

including sui generis database right, etc.)

(without a clear statement → locked data or legal uncertainty)

the legal background

“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &

including sui generis database right, etc.)

(without a clear statement → locked data or legal uncertainty)

open data → open “license”(including dedications, waivers or notices

e.g. CC0 or the PublicDomainMark)

so, to avoid prohibitive transaction costs,we have to deal with “copyright” “licenses”

so, to avoid prohibitive transaction costs,we have to deal with “copyright” “licenses”

“copyright” = copyright-like rights“license” = statements/notices with legal meaning

the Commission continues to argue that no-license is a potentially good option

theoretically, it may be the case (in certain countries or for certain PSB), but we want a clear perception of perfect legal interoperability, so this

is not helping

if you want to go this way, do as the US did with Federal PSI: put it in the public domain by law!

(data) licensing 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)

● Public Domain Mark (notice of PD status)

● 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 +)

● ...

used by/ developed with Europeana

{

the “+”s: national licenses &standard 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...

a view onlicense interoperability 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

zooming onlicense interoperability complexity

universal donors

universal donors

universal donors

● Creative Commons Zero (CC0)● Public Domain Dedication or License (PDDL)● tagging of public domain content with the PDMark

do we have universal receivers?

● strictly speaking, no● (rectius: keeping the data within you firm's secret

datacenter)

● amongst open licenses, CC BY-SA is the best candidate● could safely be used to publish derivative works of any

Public Domain or Attribution waiver/license● considering the amount of available data is the first

candidate for any “interoperability clause” in other SA licenses– GNU FDL (temporary) interop.; IODL 1.0

various approachesto 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 best practice

● New Zealand Government Open Access and Licensing (NZGOAL) framework● “NZGOAL seeks to standardise the licensing of

government copyright works for re-use using Creative Commons [Attribution] New Zealand law licences and recommends the use of ‘no-known rights’ statements for non-copyright material.”

another best practice

● the French LO adopts an interesting solution about several national “standard worries”

● section “About the Open Licence” at the end of the document● description of relevant “facts” (instead of clauses)

– that “re-use is subject to compliance with French privacy protection legislation” is one of these facts

● this would be a perfect solution, if only the list of facts was clearly outside of the copyright license (and withing a broader framework)

some implicationsfor license stewards

● beware of license vanity

● work to merge share-alike licenses (or make them compatible)

● don't create new ones!

● you may facilitate (©)interoperability if you address non-© worries with other tools

● standard © licenses do not cover non-© aspects (e.g. privacy, publicity, trademarks, cultural heritage protection laws)

– notices or non-© licenses satisfying any taste (e.g. privacy notices)

– soft law could substitute several disclaimers

● if you advise a (public sector) information holder

● don't produce a custom license, but a custom licensing framework– one page making reference to a standard © license (e.g. reproducing the CC

Commons Deed) my be enough

to be sure

those who really want to create their own “local” copyright license, should at least make sure to

use a simple “attribution” license, with a “reasonable attribution” clause avoiding the

“stacking” issue

missed opportunities

● the internal market is witnessing more and more Member States creating their own national license● (small) attrition in the re-use mechanism

● the UK led by example (in the wrong direction?)● by accident, since they wanted to use CC licenses,

but they did not find an answer for some “European” needs (e.g. licensing the sui generis database right)

conclusion (open opportunities)

● it's a learning process and we already learned quite a lot

● this is why I did not talk again about Non-Commercial clauses...

● the 4.0 version of CC licenses will address the issues that led to the non-adoption by the UK government

● non-copyright issues are not addressed in CC licenses

● a “licensing framework” clarifying privacy and other non-copyright concerns may be appropriate

– without breaking (copyright) license interoperability

● the Commission may draft a European licensing framework, customizable at the local level (even by municipalities), but adopting the most standard and widespread copyright licenses (or waivers or notices/marks)