LAPSI: legal interoperability updated

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

[email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]

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



→ decent interoperability● Share-Alike licenses




problems uncertainty





lawyers





lawyers;-)

Can we say much more?

Can we say much more?(Yes, of course!

But the policy implicationsdo 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 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 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

A View on License Complexity

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 aserious 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

Technology

LAPSI: legal interoperability updated