Creative Commons& Interface Design for Legal Systems
Towards License Interoperability: Patterns of Sustainable
Sharing Policy
Share-PSI.eu Workshop: Removing the roadblocks to a pan European
market for Public Sector Information re-use
Mike Linksvayer2011-05-11 / Brussels
Without interoperability re-use is a struggle
#!?
flickr.com/photos/dcoetzee/3566415826/ CC0
With interoperability re-use is open to the curious citizen.
flickr.com/photos/dcoetzee/3566410256/ CC0
FLOSS: 25+ years toward interoperability
FLOSS: discovery concerning what works for field
Early confusion on libre vs gratisEarly non-commercial licenses,
including first release of Linux kernelNow, people who put first
freedom (e.g., Stallman), development (e.g., Torvalds), and profit
(corporations) ~agree on what free/open means: Amazing!
FLOSS: making legal interoperability reality
Early proliferation of licenses, many vanity, much
incompatibilityGPL long dominant license; most licenses unused;
other important licenses GPL-compatible after much effort (e.g.,
Apache2, forthcoming MPL2)
FLOSS: deepening expertise, community, public sector
involvement
Well of legal and policy knowledge concerning FLOSSFSF in unique
position as GPL steward, but small part of ecosystem Activists,
analysts, communities, corporations, developers, governments, NGOs,
platforms
FLOSS: ongoing
Patents, network services, 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
Open content: 10+ years toward interoperability
Open content: what works 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.
Open content: license deproliferation
Early (1998-2001) licenses niche-centric, most prominently Open
Content/Publication Licenses, FSF Free Documentation License, EFF
Open Audio License, but many othersOCL/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 migrateSurprising and good lack of vanity
licenses
Open content / Open data / PSI
Adoption taking off in past couple yearsVarious Creative Commons
licenses, CC0PDDL, ODC-BY, ODbLOGL and similar semi-custom
instrumentsAd hoc licensing or no licensing
4 sources of interoperability challenges
Incompatible open licenses (primarily copyleft)Proliferation of
semi-custom termsUse of non-open public licenses (e.g.,
NonCommercial, NoDerivatives)No attempt to be open
The UK was able 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 Open Government Licence. The main reason for this was that none
of the existing Creative Commons licences extended to the licensing
of works protected by the database right.
Jim WrethamShare-PSI workshop position paper
[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 Creative Commons show
that this is possible (even 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 JanssenShare-PSI workshop position paper
Sui Generis database rights inadequately addressed in CC
licenses
Also the reason for creation of ODbL (incompatible copyleft)To
be fixed in version 4.0 of CC licenses
Incompatible copyleft licenses difficult to resolve
Necessary: databases and content not separate magisteria; even
if they were, much use of CC BY-SA for databasesCC and OKFn
committed to resolutionFLOSS and open content experience gives
hope, suggests solutionsDo not want this to be a legacy issue
holding back field for years!
Strong expressions of demand from public sector for
interoperability
Italian Open Data License explicitly compatible with CC BY-SA
and ODbLOGL aligned to be interoperable with CC BY and ODC-BY
Addressing other concerns driving creation of new PSI
licenses
Preference for licensing frameworks over new licensesExplain use
of standard open licenses in PSI contextKeep incompatible terms out
of license, maintaining clear interoperability
(copyleft) wikipedia
Key initiatives (CC, OKFn, and you)
Work on interoperabilityArticulate and promote consensus
licensing principles for PSI: only open terms (per OKD)Reduce other
proliferation, e.g., with licensing frameworksCollaborate on
adoption, capacity building
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
Key upcoming milestones
Digital Agenda (16-17 June, Brussels)OKCon (30 June-1 July,
Berlin)CC Global meeting (16-18 September, Warsaw)
Legal interoperability challenges not all 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.
links: convey yourself to
http://share-psi.eu/papers/CreativeCommons.pdf(Patterns of
Sustainable Sharing Policy, workshop position paper)
http://creativecommons.org(Creative Commons NGO)
