Open-Data Motion for Montreal
Locked
12
12
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
 
|
> If it were ever to escalate into a complicated legal battle, then that's the
> point any of this might matter, but if that did happen and someone had been > saying their work was in the "public domain", I think that would be a pretty > clear common sense thing from the perspective of a judge, no? No. Common sense only sometimes overlaps with law. And a problem with 'common sense' is that it is actually subjective. This is why we have law. Scenario (all in Canada): 1 - Foo releases some content, indicating on download page "This is in the public domain" 2 - Bar takes content, builds facebook app around it, and in 6 months is bringing in $100k / week 3 - Foo say "Hey, that's my data. Give me money or I'm going to take you to court". 4 - They go to court 5 - Bar's lawyer says that Foo said that the content was in the 'public domain' 6 - Judge says that 'public domain' does not exist in Canada 7 - Bar's lawyer says that Foo's _intent_ was to make it roughly equivalent to public domain, by releasing rights 8 - Foo's lawyer says that no legal license was offered, and Foo retains all rights and the rights to exercise them 9 - Result: I really don't know which way this would go. The uncertainty and risk of vague and unclear licenses makes the works to which they refer less likely to be used by a developer or end user. How do you think #3 would impact Bar's likelihood to attract investors? Or clients, if they are not certain if the app may be yanked? No matter what the final judgement is, Bar's business could easily be destroyed by this process. -glen On 1/13/11, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: > I just don't see the functional difference here. The fact that many more > people will understand "public domain" works rather than some convoluted > licence I think makes it useful to describe the concept at least. As for > "you have to do it through a licence", that's certainly not the case. I > have released many things into the "public domain" and there haven't been > any lawyer police descend on me to condemn me for doing so, nor did it > inhibit the usability or functionality of the process. > > Personally my approach to law is that it shouldn't interfere with common > sense things, and I'm pretty sure that's the point (except maybe from a > lawyer's perspective who makes money off it). If it's getting to the point > that obsessing over whether you can release your own work to the public > without a complicated licence agreement, then I'd personally say it's gone > too far and not even bother with it. In actuality, the person who created a > work is not obligated to do anything, not required to provide a licence > agreement and can just distribute their own stuff freely and say anything > they want about it, including but not limited to describing it as being in > the "public domain". > > If it were ever to escalate into a complicated legal battle, then that's the > point any of this might matter, but if that did happen and someone had been > saying their work was in the "public domain", I think that would be a pretty > clear common sense thing from the perspective of a judge, no? > > Anyway, my point is, why complicate such a simple thing when it actually > doesn't "have" to be? Is there any advantage to complicating it? > > cheers, > drew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Newton > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:08 AM > To: civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal > > Drew, > > I do not know how the present environment of 'rampant copyright > violation' would change how easy it would be to put something in the > public domain. > > As I indicated earlier, you cannot put a newly created work into the > public domain in Canada. > You can, however, license it to that it is, for _almost_ all intents > and purposes, in the public domain. But the copyright holder still > holds the copyright. You are conflating these two things. > > As opposed to 1) a work whose copyright has expired; or 2) A work in > the U.S. whose rights holder has explicitly placed the work in the > Public Domain. Both of these do not have any copyright associated with > them. > > We're not worrying about it. We're just making it clear that if you > want to offer public domain-like rights to a work in Canada, then you > have to do it through a license. > > -Glen > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I’m surprised you guys are actually debating the suggestion that it would >> be >> difficult to put something into the public domain and allow it to be >> copied >> in the age of rampant copyright violation where people freely and >> blatantly >> trade obviously copyrighted works. If someone actually wanted to release >> a >> work to be copied freely that was of value, I’m quite certain there would >> be >> NO problems whatsoever with this. Seriously, what’s the issue? >> >> There are no possible legal issues since the only person with a possible >> cause of action would be the one who was releasing the works. The only >> possible catch I could foresee in any way shape or form would be someone >> who >> pretends to release something into the public domain and tricks people >> into >> copying it so that they can file a lawsuit against them, but I’m pretty >> sure >> that would be abuse of process and VERY severely frowned upon to the point >> that the person doing so would likely have a backlash of punitive damages >> from the courts. >> >> So why even worry about it? >> >> cheers, >> drew >> >> >> From: David Eaves >> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:58 PM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal >> >> Just to echo on Michael's comment, I don't know if you can make something >> public domain however, this is the wrong discussion. What we do know is >> that >> data (and facts) cannot be copyrighted so to apply copyright to data is >> itself a problem (and cannot be legally upheld). What can be copyrighted >> is >> the data structure, and here waiving all rights is the right way forward. >> However, it some ways it doesn't matter since it is the data we are after. >> The bigger challenge isn't the copyright issues, it's the license (should >> the city choose to exercise one. >> >> In relation to putting things in the public domain I am not 100% but it >> may >> be true that, as Michael has suggested, that placing new works in the >> public >> domain is problematic. Drew - this is why CC created the public domain >> registry, so that people could add items to which copyright had definitely >> expired. MAybe you can add new works to it, but that isn't clear to me. >> >> cheers, >> dave >> >> On 11-01-12 9:12 AM, Michael Mulley wrote: >> >> My understanding from people who know more than I do -- Kent Mewhort to >> thread? -- is that, while works whose copyright has expired are in the >> public domain, explicitly placing a new work in the public domain is >> problematic in Canada. Instead, the best practice is to retain copyright >> but >> attach a permissive, irrevocable license. >> >> Suggestions for the Montreal motion: >> >> 1. For the (c) point, explicitly specify ODC-By or something functionally >> equivalent (I'm not sure a French translation of ODC-By exists yet) as the >> license. Licensing is something many cities have gotten wrong; city >> lawyers >> will be risk-averse and restriction-friendly; it's far better for us to >> specify a precise set of terms than offer loose guidelines, which almost >> inevitably end up producing license terms which are egregious (the common >> Canadian "we can make you stop using data you've already downloaded, at >> any >> time, for any reason") or bizarre (Ottawa's insistence that, if you use >> their data, you comply with all industry standards). >> >> 2. For the (a) point, I'd argue that "open standards", to the degree that >> it >> means anything, isn't a battle we want to be fighting. Far more important >> is >> machine-processable, which you cover in the principles earlier. PDF is an >> open standard, but of course not the kind of data we want. Meanwhile, ESRI >> shapefiles are proprietary, and I'd be thrilled if Montreal released any >> of >> its geospatial data in that format. >> >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Did you just say there is no Canadian public domain? >>> >>> That kind of goes against everything I've learned in school and industry >>> and what about this: >>> >>> For Immediate Release >>> March 3, 2006 >>> Toronto, ON – Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency >>> and Creative Commons >>> Canada, in partnership with Creative Commons Corporation in the US, today >>> announced the >>> development of a Canadian public domain registry. The ground- breaking >>> project – the most >>> comprehensive of its kind in Canada – will create an online, globally >>> searchable catalogue of published >>> works that are in the Canadian public domain. >>> >>> >>> Respectfully submitted, >>> Drew Mcpherson >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:29 AM >>> To: civicaccess discuss >>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >>>> trade secret >>>> regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may >>>> be allowed >>> >>>> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >>>> re-use by >>>> third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not copyrighted >>>> except >>>> if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >>> >>> Jonathan, >>> >>> In Canada, there is no legal concept 'Public Domain'. >>> And I believe that you cannot remove the copyright from something, >>> even if you own it (but you can transfer it). >>> You can state (i.e. license) that you allow all and any uses by all >>> and any persons, for _most_ intents and purposes making it very Public >>> Domain-like. >>> But I believe the copyright remains. >>> >>> For example, there has been some mention in this group of how Surrey, >>> BC is taking the lead with how open its data release is (I agree that >>> Surrey is in the lead and is where all Canadian cities should be). >>> However, in this forum Sam Vekemans 2010.11.16 said: "...to "Open >>> Data" meaning truly useful content, where no restrictions are in >>> place. (ie. Surrey, BC making their data Public Domain)". While I >>> completely agree with his sentiment, technically (amd legally) Surrey >>> did not put its data into the 'Public Domain', nor did they relinquish >>> copyright. Instead, they adopted a license (Public Domain Dedication >>> and License v1.0 http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ ) >>> that allows almost unlimited use, by anyone, of the data Surrey is >>> releasing under this license. >>> >>> From the license: "...this waiver and licence tries to the fullest >>> extent possible to eliminate or fully license any rights that cover >>> this database and data." >>> >>> So there is a license, and copyright is retained. >>> >>> This license recognizes that some jurisdictions do not have 'Public >>> Domain' and has a clause to take this into account: >>> >>> "3.2 Waiver of rights and claims in Copyright and Database Rights when >>> Section 3.1 dedication inapplicable. If the dedication in Section 3.1 >>> does not apply in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 6.4, the >>> Rightsholder waives any rights and claims that the Rightsholder may >>> have or acquire in the future over the Work in: >>> a. Copyright; and >>> b. Database Rights. >>> To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, the above waiver >>> of rights and claims applies worldwide and includes media and formats >>> now known or created in the future. The Rightsholder agrees not to >>> assert the above rights and waives the right to enforce them over the >>> Work." >>> >>> So the Rightsholder still has these rights, but promises not to assert >>> or enforce them. Again, still a license, and no 'removal' of copyright >>> takes place. >>> >>> My suggestion to replace the clauses in Jonathan's text either by >>> adopting some broad language talking about using a liberal, >>> non-exclusive, non-restrictive license (possibly with examples) or go >>> straight to suggesting the PDDL. >>> >>> I am sure the city of Montreal lawyers will not like to have a clause >>> that asks the city to do something that is not legally possible in >>> Canada. :-) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Glen :-) >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Bonjour à tous, >>>> Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data in >>>> the >>>> city of Montreal. The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in >>>> Vancouver and Ottawa. We would very much appreciate your comments, >>>> alternative wording and other advice, especially around your respective >>>> areas of expertise. >>>> This version remains a rough copy. >>>> The document is presently in English to facilitate commenting by various >>>> parties across Canada, it will be circulated on Civic Access for a >>>> second >>>> round of comments and then translated in French. >>>> Deadline for 1st round of comments: Sunday, January 16th, 2010 at 11PM >>>> EST >>>> Please be sure to sign with your name. >>>> Warm regards, >>>> Jean-Noé, Jonathan, Michael, & Sebastien >>>> MontrealOuvert.net >>>> Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal >>>> Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, Z,...", >>>> but >>>> we are really looking for comments on the following: >>>> AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; >>>> To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the >>>> following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are >>>> recommended by Montréal Ouvert. Originally created in 2007 through a >>>> workshop of concerned organizations, many jurisdictions have used them >>>> to >>>> guide their Open Data initiatives: >>>> Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is >>>> not >>>> subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege >>>> limitations. >>>> Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible >>>> level >>>> of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. >>>> Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the >>>> value >>>> of the data. >>>> Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest >>>> range of purposes. >>>> Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated >>>> processing. >>>> Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of >>>> registration. >>>> Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has >>>> exclusive control. >>>> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >>>> trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege >>>> restrictions may be allowed.” >>>> (Source: http://resource.org/8_principles.html) >>>> >>>> La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": >>>> a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is >>>> declared >>>> "open" >>>> Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with >>>> citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of data >>>> possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; >>>> Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible >>>> to >>>> adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other >>>> formats >>>> of media; >>>> b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine >>>> readable formats. >>>> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >>>> re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not >>>> copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >>>> >>>> BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the XXX be tasked with developing an action >>>> plan >>>> for implementation of the above. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> - >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> ________________________________ >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> > > > > -- > > - > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss -- - |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
Yes I'd agree with your concerns except for one thing. It would have to be
the CITY who would be pulling this kind of sleazy money-grab stunt for this to be any concern at all. If we have this little faith in our city, then I think there are much much bigger problems than open data licensing. Drew -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:38 PM To: civicaccess discuss Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal > If it were ever to escalate into a complicated legal battle, then that's > the > point any of this might matter, but if that did happen and someone had > been > saying their work was in the "public domain", I think that would be a > pretty > clear common sense thing from the perspective of a judge, no? No. Common sense only sometimes overlaps with law. And a problem with 'common sense' is that it is actually subjective. This is why we have law. Scenario (all in Canada): 1 - Foo releases some content, indicating on download page "This is in the public domain" 2 - Bar takes content, builds facebook app around it, and in 6 months is bringing in $100k / week 3 - Foo say "Hey, that's my data. Give me money or I'm going to take you to court". 4 - They go to court 5 - Bar's lawyer says that Foo said that the content was in the 'public domain' 6 - Judge says that 'public domain' does not exist in Canada 7 - Bar's lawyer says that Foo's _intent_ was to make it roughly equivalent to public domain, by releasing rights 8 - Foo's lawyer says that no legal license was offered, and Foo retains all rights and the rights to exercise them 9 - Result: I really don't know which way this would go. The uncertainty and risk of vague and unclear licenses makes the works to which they refer less likely to be used by a developer or end user. How do you think #3 would impact Bar's likelihood to attract investors? Or clients, if they are not certain if the app may be yanked? No matter what the final judgement is, Bar's business could easily be destroyed by this process. -glen On 1/13/11, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: > I just don't see the functional difference here. The fact that many more > people will understand "public domain" works rather than some convoluted > licence I think makes it useful to describe the concept at least. As for > "you have to do it through a licence", that's certainly not the case. I > have released many things into the "public domain" and there haven't been > any lawyer police descend on me to condemn me for doing so, nor did it > inhibit the usability or functionality of the process. > > Personally my approach to law is that it shouldn't interfere with common > sense things, and I'm pretty sure that's the point (except maybe from a > lawyer's perspective who makes money off it). If it's getting to the > point > that obsessing over whether you can release your own work to the public > without a complicated licence agreement, then I'd personally say it's gone > too far and not even bother with it. In actuality, the person who created > a > work is not obligated to do anything, not required to provide a licence > agreement and can just distribute their own stuff freely and say anything > they want about it, including but not limited to describing it as being in > the "public domain". > > If it were ever to escalate into a complicated legal battle, then that's > the > point any of this might matter, but if that did happen and someone had > been > saying their work was in the "public domain", I think that would be a > pretty > clear common sense thing from the perspective of a judge, no? > > Anyway, my point is, why complicate such a simple thing when it actually > doesn't "have" to be? Is there any advantage to complicating it? > > cheers, > drew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Newton > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:08 AM > To: civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal > > Drew, > > I do not know how the present environment of 'rampant copyright > violation' would change how easy it would be to put something in the > public domain. > > As I indicated earlier, you cannot put a newly created work into the > public domain in Canada. > You can, however, license it to that it is, for _almost_ all intents > and purposes, in the public domain. But the copyright holder still > holds the copyright. You are conflating these two things. > > As opposed to 1) a work whose copyright has expired; or 2) A work in > the U.S. whose rights holder has explicitly placed the work in the > Public Domain. Both of these do not have any copyright associated with > them. > > We're not worrying about it. We're just making it clear that if you > want to offer public domain-like rights to a work in Canada, then you > have to do it through a license. > > -Glen > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I’m surprised you guys are actually debating the suggestion that it would >> be >> difficult to put something into the public domain and allow it to be >> copied >> in the age of rampant copyright violation where people freely and >> blatantly >> trade obviously copyrighted works. If someone actually wanted to release >> a >> work to be copied freely that was of value, I’m quite certain there would >> be >> NO problems whatsoever with this. Seriously, what’s the issue? >> >> There are no possible legal issues since the only person with a possible >> cause of action would be the one who was releasing the works. The only >> possible catch I could foresee in any way shape or form would be someone >> who >> pretends to release something into the public domain and tricks people >> into >> copying it so that they can file a lawsuit against them, but I’m pretty >> sure >> that would be abuse of process and VERY severely frowned upon to the >> point >> that the person doing so would likely have a backlash of punitive damages >> from the courts. >> >> So why even worry about it? >> >> cheers, >> drew >> >> >> From: David Eaves >> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:58 PM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal >> >> Just to echo on Michael's comment, I don't know if you can make something >> public domain however, this is the wrong discussion. What we do know is >> that >> data (and facts) cannot be copyrighted so to apply copyright to data is >> itself a problem (and cannot be legally upheld). What can be copyrighted >> is >> the data structure, and here waiving all rights is the right way forward. >> However, it some ways it doesn't matter since it is the data we are >> after. >> The bigger challenge isn't the copyright issues, it's the license (should >> the city choose to exercise one. >> >> In relation to putting things in the public domain I am not 100% but it >> may >> be true that, as Michael has suggested, that placing new works in the >> public >> domain is problematic. Drew - this is why CC created the public domain >> registry, so that people could add items to which copyright had >> definitely >> expired. MAybe you can add new works to it, but that isn't clear to me. >> >> cheers, >> dave >> >> On 11-01-12 9:12 AM, Michael Mulley wrote: >> >> My understanding from people who know more than I do -- Kent Mewhort to >> thread? -- is that, while works whose copyright has expired are in the >> public domain, explicitly placing a new work in the public domain is >> problematic in Canada. Instead, the best practice is to retain copyright >> but >> attach a permissive, irrevocable license. >> >> Suggestions for the Montreal motion: >> >> 1. For the (c) point, explicitly specify ODC-By or something functionally >> equivalent (I'm not sure a French translation of ODC-By exists yet) as >> the >> license. Licensing is something many cities have gotten wrong; city >> lawyers >> will be risk-averse and restriction-friendly; it's far better for us to >> specify a precise set of terms than offer loose guidelines, which almost >> inevitably end up producing license terms which are egregious (the common >> Canadian "we can make you stop using data you've already downloaded, at >> any >> time, for any reason") or bizarre (Ottawa's insistence that, if you use >> their data, you comply with all industry standards). >> >> 2. For the (a) point, I'd argue that "open standards", to the degree that >> it >> means anything, isn't a battle we want to be fighting. Far more important >> is >> machine-processable, which you cover in the principles earlier. PDF is an >> open standard, but of course not the kind of data we want. Meanwhile, >> ESRI >> shapefiles are proprietary, and I'd be thrilled if Montreal released any >> of >> its geospatial data in that format. >> >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Did you just say there is no Canadian public domain? >>> >>> That kind of goes against everything I've learned in school and industry >>> and what about this: >>> >>> For Immediate Release >>> March 3, 2006 >>> Toronto, ON – Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency >>> and Creative Commons >>> Canada, in partnership with Creative Commons Corporation in the US, >>> today >>> announced the >>> development of a Canadian public domain registry. The ground- breaking >>> project – the most >>> comprehensive of its kind in Canada – will create an online, globally >>> searchable catalogue of published >>> works that are in the Canadian public domain. >>> >>> >>> Respectfully submitted, >>> Drew Mcpherson >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:29 AM >>> To: civicaccess discuss >>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >>>> trade secret >>>> regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may >>>> be allowed >>> >>>> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >>>> re-use by >>>> third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not >>>> copyrighted >>>> except >>>> if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >>> >>> Jonathan, >>> >>> In Canada, there is no legal concept 'Public Domain'. >>> And I believe that you cannot remove the copyright from something, >>> even if you own it (but you can transfer it). >>> You can state (i.e. license) that you allow all and any uses by all >>> and any persons, for _most_ intents and purposes making it very Public >>> Domain-like. >>> But I believe the copyright remains. >>> >>> For example, there has been some mention in this group of how Surrey, >>> BC is taking the lead with how open its data release is (I agree that >>> Surrey is in the lead and is where all Canadian cities should be). >>> However, in this forum Sam Vekemans 2010.11.16 said: "...to "Open >>> Data" meaning truly useful content, where no restrictions are in >>> place. (ie. Surrey, BC making their data Public Domain)". While I >>> completely agree with his sentiment, technically (amd legally) Surrey >>> did not put its data into the 'Public Domain', nor did they relinquish >>> copyright. Instead, they adopted a license (Public Domain Dedication >>> and License v1.0 http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ ) >>> that allows almost unlimited use, by anyone, of the data Surrey is >>> releasing under this license. >>> >>> From the license: "...this waiver and licence tries to the fullest >>> extent possible to eliminate or fully license any rights that cover >>> this database and data." >>> >>> So there is a license, and copyright is retained. >>> >>> This license recognizes that some jurisdictions do not have 'Public >>> Domain' and has a clause to take this into account: >>> >>> "3.2 Waiver of rights and claims in Copyright and Database Rights when >>> Section 3.1 dedication inapplicable. If the dedication in Section 3.1 >>> does not apply in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 6.4, the >>> Rightsholder waives any rights and claims that the Rightsholder may >>> have or acquire in the future over the Work in: >>> a. Copyright; and >>> b. Database Rights. >>> To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, the above waiver >>> of rights and claims applies worldwide and includes media and formats >>> now known or created in the future. The Rightsholder agrees not to >>> assert the above rights and waives the right to enforce them over the >>> Work." >>> >>> So the Rightsholder still has these rights, but promises not to assert >>> or enforce them. Again, still a license, and no 'removal' of copyright >>> takes place. >>> >>> My suggestion to replace the clauses in Jonathan's text either by >>> adopting some broad language talking about using a liberal, >>> non-exclusive, non-restrictive license (possibly with examples) or go >>> straight to suggesting the PDDL. >>> >>> I am sure the city of Montreal lawyers will not like to have a clause >>> that asks the city to do something that is not legally possible in >>> Canada. :-) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Glen :-) >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Bonjour à tous, >>>> Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data >>>> in >>>> the >>>> city of Montreal. The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in >>>> Vancouver and Ottawa. We would very much appreciate your comments, >>>> alternative wording and other advice, especially around your respective >>>> areas of expertise. >>>> This version remains a rough copy. >>>> The document is presently in English to facilitate commenting by >>>> various >>>> parties across Canada, it will be circulated on Civic Access for a >>>> second >>>> round of comments and then translated in French. >>>> Deadline for 1st round of comments: Sunday, January 16th, 2010 at 11PM >>>> EST >>>> Please be sure to sign with your name. >>>> Warm regards, >>>> Jean-Noé, Jonathan, Michael, & Sebastien >>>> MontrealOuvert.net >>>> Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal >>>> Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, >>>> Z,...", >>>> but >>>> we are really looking for comments on the following: >>>> AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; >>>> To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the >>>> following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are >>>> recommended by Montréal Ouvert. Originally created in 2007 through a >>>> workshop of concerned organizations, many jurisdictions have used them >>>> to >>>> guide their Open Data initiatives: >>>> Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is >>>> not >>>> subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege >>>> limitations. >>>> Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible >>>> level >>>> of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. >>>> Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the >>>> value >>>> of the data. >>>> Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the >>>> widest >>>> range of purposes. >>>> Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated >>>> processing. >>>> Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of >>>> registration. >>>> Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has >>>> exclusive control. >>>> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >>>> trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege >>>> restrictions may be allowed.” >>>> (Source: http://resource.org/8_principles.html) >>>> >>>> La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": >>>> a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is >>>> declared >>>> "open" >>>> Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with >>>> citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of >>>> data >>>> possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; >>>> Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible >>>> to >>>> adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other >>>> formats >>>> of media; >>>> b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine >>>> readable formats. >>>> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >>>> re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not >>>> copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >>>> >>>> BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the XXX be tasked with developing an action >>>> plan >>>> for implementation of the above. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> - >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> ________________________________ >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> > > > > -- > > - > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss -- - _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
Aim high and let them take stuff out, but always, always aim high.
The City of Montreal is officially involved in the CIPPIC Terms of Use process as part of the G4 + 1, the +1 being Mtl and they will get the report and the recommendations from CIPPIC that is comparing the current TOUs, with the ODPL, and Creative commons attribution. They will also receive a risk analysis. In addition, they will be part of the discussions with lawyers that will follow the tabling of this report.
But why not recommend such a license in the Motion, with the whereas open government is, and a principle of open gov is, therefore it is recommended that..., which is blah blah.
Also Seb, if you find lawyers who are Francophone based in Montreal who have expertise in this area please can you forward their names. I will put them in touch with the folks at CIPPIC who are always looking to collaborate avec Québec. There must be some creative commons type of lawyers in the universities somewhere in la belle province.
Cheers t
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: Yes I'd agree with your concerns except for one thing. It would have to be the CITY who would be pulling this kind of sleazy money-grab stunt for this to be any concern at all. If we have this little faith in our city, then I think there are much much bigger problems than open data licensing. -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
Tracey,
Le 13 janv. 2011 à 21:34, Tracey P. Lauriault a écrit : > There must be some creative commons type of lawyers in the > universities somewhere in la belle province. Yes. We just had a CC Salon Montreal. Olivier Charbonneau was/is involved in CC Montreal, but I think he wants to step out. http://twitter.com/culturelibre Gil de Saint-Exupéry is interested too. http://twitter.com/gildestex -- Karl Dubost Montréal, QC, Canada http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
If you are going to choose a license I wouldn't choose a CC license. The
CC license for data is not without its challenges... In addition, it adds confusion to the notion of copyright around data (which cannot be copyrighted) by applying a copyright alternative to something that is not copyrightable. In addition the CIPPIC report that is being passed around is also not without its problems. It incorrectly assess the PDDL license - something the authors have been made aware of on several occasion but have not revised. I'm increasingly becoming persuaded - especially as I talk to more developers and others involved in actually using the data - that the PDDL is probably the best license out there so if you had to recommend one, that's probably the one I would go with. Cheers, dave On 11-01-13 8:19 PM, Karl Dubost wrote: > Tracey, > > Le 13 janv. 2011 à 21:34, Tracey P. Lauriault a écrit : >> There must be some creative commons type of lawyers in the >> universities somewhere in la belle province. > Yes. We just had a CC Salon Montreal. > Olivier Charbonneau was/is involved in CC Montreal, but I think he wants to step out. > http://twitter.com/culturelibre > Gil de Saint-Exupéry is interested too. > http://twitter.com/gildestex > |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
David;
The CIPPIC report will include a revision, as discussed on this list, and it will include PDDL. The report will be released next week. The Authors as you know are the only legal public interest clinic in Canada and have been busy with the copyright bill. They are aware of your comments, and the comments of others as I have forwarded these to them. It is just a question of time.
Sincerely Tracey
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:07 AM, David Eaves <[hidden email]> wrote: If you are going to choose a license I wouldn't choose a CC license. The CC license for data is not without its challenges... In addition, it adds confusion to the notion of copyright around data (which cannot be copyrighted) by applying a copyright alternative to something that is not copyrightable. -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
In reply to this post by Drew Mcpherson
Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It would have to be > the CITY who would be pulling this kind of sleazy money-grab stunt for this > to be any concern at all. If we have this little faith in our city, then I > think there are much much bigger problems than open data licensing. IF it is an actual Open Data license, then this stunt is not possible. This is why you hear me ranting about getting Open Data licenses into these projects and into the Canadian cities. And about having licenses that can exist within the Canadian legal context. Otherwise, it is non-enforceable. The Canadian cities have gone for quasi-Open Data licenses: "let's _call_ it 'Open Data' to get kudos from everyone but actually hold on to some rights that allow us to change our minds at some later date when we encounter someone/something we don't like...": http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/2010/07/its-not-open-data-so-stop-calling-it.html -glen On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Yes I'd agree with your concerns except for one thing. It would have to be > the CITY who would be pulling this kind of sleazy money-grab stunt for this > to be any concern at all. If we have this little faith in our city, then I > think there are much much bigger problems than open data licensing. > > Drew > > -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:38 PM > To: civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal > >> If it were ever to escalate into a complicated legal battle, then that's >> the >> point any of this might matter, but if that did happen and someone had >> been >> saying their work was in the "public domain", I think that would be a >> pretty >> clear common sense thing from the perspective of a judge, no? > > No. > > Common sense only sometimes overlaps with law. > And a problem with 'common sense' is that it is actually subjective. > This is why we have law. > > Scenario (all in Canada): > 1 - Foo releases some content, indicating on download page "This is in > the public domain" > 2 - Bar takes content, builds facebook app around it, and in 6 months > is bringing in $100k / week > 3 - Foo say "Hey, that's my data. Give me money or I'm going to take > you to court". > 4 - They go to court > 5 - Bar's lawyer says that Foo said that the content was in the 'public > domain' > 6 - Judge says that 'public domain' does not exist in Canada > 7 - Bar's lawyer says that Foo's _intent_ was to make it roughly > equivalent to public domain, by releasing rights > 8 - Foo's lawyer says that no legal license was offered, and Foo > retains all rights and the rights to exercise them > 9 - Result: I really don't know which way this would go. > > The uncertainty and risk of vague and unclear licenses makes the works > to which they refer less likely to be used by a developer or end user. > > How do you think #3 would impact Bar's likelihood to attract > investors? Or clients, if they are not certain if the app may be > yanked? No matter what the final judgement is, Bar's business could > easily be destroyed by this process. > > -glen > > On 1/13/11, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> I just don't see the functional difference here. The fact that many more >> people will understand "public domain" works rather than some convoluted >> licence I think makes it useful to describe the concept at least. As for >> "you have to do it through a licence", that's certainly not the case. I >> have released many things into the "public domain" and there haven't been >> any lawyer police descend on me to condemn me for doing so, nor did it >> inhibit the usability or functionality of the process. >> >> Personally my approach to law is that it shouldn't interfere with common >> sense things, and I'm pretty sure that's the point (except maybe from a >> lawyer's perspective who makes money off it). If it's getting to the >> point >> that obsessing over whether you can release your own work to the public >> without a complicated licence agreement, then I'd personally say it's gone >> too far and not even bother with it. In actuality, the person who created >> a >> work is not obligated to do anything, not required to provide a licence >> agreement and can just distribute their own stuff freely and say anything >> they want about it, including but not limited to describing it as being in >> the "public domain". >> >> If it were ever to escalate into a complicated legal battle, then that's >> the >> point any of this might matter, but if that did happen and someone had >> been >> saying their work was in the "public domain", I think that would be a >> pretty >> clear common sense thing from the perspective of a judge, no? >> >> Anyway, my point is, why complicate such a simple thing when it actually >> doesn't "have" to be? Is there any advantage to complicating it? >> >> cheers, >> drew >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Glen Newton >> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:08 AM >> To: civicaccess discuss >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal >> >> Drew, >> >> I do not know how the present environment of 'rampant copyright >> violation' would change how easy it would be to put something in the >> public domain. >> >> As I indicated earlier, you cannot put a newly created work into the >> public domain in Canada. >> You can, however, license it to that it is, for _almost_ all intents >> and purposes, in the public domain. But the copyright holder still >> holds the copyright. You are conflating these two things. >> >> As opposed to 1) a work whose copyright has expired; or 2) A work in >> the U.S. whose rights holder has explicitly placed the work in the >> Public Domain. Both of these do not have any copyright associated with >> them. >> >> We're not worrying about it. We're just making it clear that if you >> want to offer public domain-like rights to a work in Canada, then you >> have to do it through a license. >> >> -Glen >> >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> I’m surprised you guys are actually debating the suggestion that it would >>> be >>> difficult to put something into the public domain and allow it to be >>> copied >>> in the age of rampant copyright violation where people freely and >>> blatantly >>> trade obviously copyrighted works. If someone actually wanted to release >>> a >>> work to be copied freely that was of value, I’m quite certain there would >>> be >>> NO problems whatsoever with this. Seriously, what’s the issue? >>> >>> There are no possible legal issues since the only person with a possible >>> cause of action would be the one who was releasing the works. The only >>> possible catch I could foresee in any way shape or form would be someone >>> who >>> pretends to release something into the public domain and tricks people >>> into >>> copying it so that they can file a lawsuit against them, but I’m pretty >>> sure >>> that would be abuse of process and VERY severely frowned upon to the >>> point >>> that the person doing so would likely have a backlash of punitive damages >>> from the courts. >>> >>> So why even worry about it? >>> >>> cheers, >>> drew >>> >>> >>> From: David Eaves >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:58 PM >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal >>> >>> Just to echo on Michael's comment, I don't know if you can make something >>> public domain however, this is the wrong discussion. What we do know is >>> that >>> data (and facts) cannot be copyrighted so to apply copyright to data is >>> itself a problem (and cannot be legally upheld). What can be copyrighted >>> is >>> the data structure, and here waiving all rights is the right way forward. >>> However, it some ways it doesn't matter since it is the data we are >>> after. >>> The bigger challenge isn't the copyright issues, it's the license (should >>> the city choose to exercise one. >>> >>> In relation to putting things in the public domain I am not 100% but it >>> may >>> be true that, as Michael has suggested, that placing new works in the >>> public >>> domain is problematic. Drew - this is why CC created the public domain >>> registry, so that people could add items to which copyright had >>> definitely >>> expired. MAybe you can add new works to it, but that isn't clear to me. >>> >>> cheers, >>> dave >>> >>> On 11-01-12 9:12 AM, Michael Mulley wrote: >>> >>> My understanding from people who know more than I do -- Kent Mewhort to >>> thread? -- is that, while works whose copyright has expired are in the >>> public domain, explicitly placing a new work in the public domain is >>> problematic in Canada. Instead, the best practice is to retain copyright >>> but >>> attach a permissive, irrevocable license. >>> >>> Suggestions for the Montreal motion: >>> >>> 1. For the (c) point, explicitly specify ODC-By or something functionally >>> equivalent (I'm not sure a French translation of ODC-By exists yet) as >>> the >>> license. Licensing is something many cities have gotten wrong; city >>> lawyers >>> will be risk-averse and restriction-friendly; it's far better for us to >>> specify a precise set of terms than offer loose guidelines, which almost >>> inevitably end up producing license terms which are egregious (the common >>> Canadian "we can make you stop using data you've already downloaded, at >>> any >>> time, for any reason") or bizarre (Ottawa's insistence that, if you use >>> their data, you comply with all industry standards). >>> >>> 2. For the (a) point, I'd argue that "open standards", to the degree that >>> it >>> means anything, isn't a battle we want to be fighting. Far more important >>> is >>> machine-processable, which you cover in the principles earlier. PDF is an >>> open standard, but of course not the kind of data we want. Meanwhile, >>> ESRI >>> shapefiles are proprietary, and I'd be thrilled if Montreal released any >>> of >>> its geospatial data in that format. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Did you just say there is no Canadian public domain? >>>> >>>> That kind of goes against everything I've learned in school and industry >>>> and what about this: >>>> >>>> For Immediate Release >>>> March 3, 2006 >>>> Toronto, ON – Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency >>>> and Creative Commons >>>> Canada, in partnership with Creative Commons Corporation in the US, >>>> today >>>> announced the >>>> development of a Canadian public domain registry. The ground- breaking >>>> project – the most >>>> comprehensive of its kind in Canada – will create an online, globally >>>> searchable catalogue of published >>>> works that are in the Canadian public domain. >>>> >>>> >>>> Respectfully submitted, >>>> Drew Mcpherson >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:29 AM >>>> To: civicaccess discuss >>>> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >>>>> trade secret >>>>> regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may >>>>> be allowed >>>> >>>>> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >>>>> re-use by >>>>> third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not >>>>> copyrighted >>>>> except >>>>> if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >>>> >>>> Jonathan, >>>> >>>> In Canada, there is no legal concept 'Public Domain'. >>>> And I believe that you cannot remove the copyright from something, >>>> even if you own it (but you can transfer it). >>>> You can state (i.e. license) that you allow all and any uses by all >>>> and any persons, for _most_ intents and purposes making it very Public >>>> Domain-like. >>>> But I believe the copyright remains. >>>> >>>> For example, there has been some mention in this group of how Surrey, >>>> BC is taking the lead with how open its data release is (I agree that >>>> Surrey is in the lead and is where all Canadian cities should be). >>>> However, in this forum Sam Vekemans 2010.11.16 said: "...to "Open >>>> Data" meaning truly useful content, where no restrictions are in >>>> place. (ie. Surrey, BC making their data Public Domain)". While I >>>> completely agree with his sentiment, technically (amd legally) Surrey >>>> did not put its data into the 'Public Domain', nor did they relinquish >>>> copyright. Instead, they adopted a license (Public Domain Dedication >>>> and License v1.0 http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ ) >>>> that allows almost unlimited use, by anyone, of the data Surrey is >>>> releasing under this license. >>>> >>>> From the license: "...this waiver and licence tries to the fullest >>>> extent possible to eliminate or fully license any rights that cover >>>> this database and data." >>>> >>>> So there is a license, and copyright is retained. >>>> >>>> This license recognizes that some jurisdictions do not have 'Public >>>> Domain' and has a clause to take this into account: >>>> >>>> "3.2 Waiver of rights and claims in Copyright and Database Rights when >>>> Section 3.1 dedication inapplicable. If the dedication in Section 3.1 >>>> does not apply in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 6.4, the >>>> Rightsholder waives any rights and claims that the Rightsholder may >>>> have or acquire in the future over the Work in: >>>> a. Copyright; and >>>> b. Database Rights. >>>> To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, the above waiver >>>> of rights and claims applies worldwide and includes media and formats >>>> now known or created in the future. The Rightsholder agrees not to >>>> assert the above rights and waives the right to enforce them over the >>>> Work." >>>> >>>> So the Rightsholder still has these rights, but promises not to assert >>>> or enforce them. Again, still a license, and no 'removal' of copyright >>>> takes place. >>>> >>>> My suggestion to replace the clauses in Jonathan's text either by >>>> adopting some broad language talking about using a liberal, >>>> non-exclusive, non-restrictive license (possibly with examples) or go >>>> straight to suggesting the PDDL. >>>> >>>> I am sure the city of Montreal lawyers will not like to have a clause >>>> that asks the city to do something that is not legally possible in >>>> Canada. :-) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Glen :-) >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Bonjour à tous, >>>>> Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data >>>>> in >>>>> the >>>>> city of Montreal. The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in >>>>> Vancouver and Ottawa. We would very much appreciate your comments, >>>>> alternative wording and other advice, especially around your respective >>>>> areas of expertise. >>>>> This version remains a rough copy. >>>>> The document is presently in English to facilitate commenting by >>>>> various >>>>> parties across Canada, it will be circulated on Civic Access for a >>>>> second >>>>> round of comments and then translated in French. >>>>> Deadline for 1st round of comments: Sunday, January 16th, 2010 at 11PM >>>>> EST >>>>> Please be sure to sign with your name. >>>>> Warm regards, >>>>> Jean-Noé, Jonathan, Michael, & Sebastien >>>>> MontrealOuvert.net >>>>> Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal >>>>> Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, >>>>> Z,...", >>>>> but >>>>> we are really looking for comments on the following: >>>>> AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; >>>>> To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the >>>>> following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are >>>>> recommended by Montréal Ouvert. Originally created in 2007 through a >>>>> workshop of concerned organizations, many jurisdictions have used them >>>>> to >>>>> guide their Open Data initiatives: >>>>> Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is >>>>> not >>>>> subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege >>>>> limitations. >>>>> Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible >>>>> level >>>>> of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. >>>>> Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the >>>>> value >>>>> of the data. >>>>> Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the >>>>> widest >>>>> range of purposes. >>>>> Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated >>>>> processing. >>>>> Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of >>>>> registration. >>>>> Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has >>>>> exclusive control. >>>>> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >>>>> trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege >>>>> restrictions may be allowed.” >>>>> (Source: http://resource.org/8_principles.html) >>>>> >>>>> La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": >>>>> a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is >>>>> declared >>>>> "open" >>>>> Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with >>>>> citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of >>>>> data >>>>> possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; >>>>> Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible >>>>> to >>>>> adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other >>>>> formats >>>>> of media; >>>>> b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine >>>>> readable formats. >>>>> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >>>>> re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not >>>>> copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >>>>> >>>>> BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the XXX be tasked with developing an action >>>>> plan >>>>> for implementation of the above. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>>> [hidden email] >>>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> - >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> - >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > -- > > - > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss -- - |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
It would be a very good sign to see Montreal adopt PDDL for their Open
Data Program, following the lead of Surrey, BC. |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
+10
Yes, this would show some real leadership from Montreal. -Glen On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Richard Weait <[hidden email]> wrote: > It would be a very good sign to see Montreal adopt PDDL for their Open > Data Program, following the lead of Surrey, BC. > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > -- - |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
In reply to this post by Jonathan Brun-2
Hi everyone,
Just got onboard with this thread... As far as my understanding of the matter, most of the comments so far are correct. The only clear and definitive way that works enter the public domain is when the term of copyright expires. However, as mentioned, this doesn't really create any serious barrier to a healthy public commons. It's an interesting question from a legal standpoint (and there's no clear answer) of whether copyright can actually be assigned to the "public domain"; I'd argue yes, but in practice the question is rather moot. The sure and sound mechanism to put a work into the commons is by licensing it to the public-at-large, and to do so with liberal license terms. This is exactly what licenses such as CC and ODC attempt to do. Now, Drew, if you or anyone else simply declared your work to be in the "public domain", I agree that a judge might very well uphold such a "clear common sense" intention as valid. A judge might simply construe such a statement as liberal license for the public to use the work. However, that doesn't mean that a more explicit, and carefully drafted license should not be used. Licenses such as CC cover a lot of loopholes and bring certainty and clarity to a person's declaration of how she or he wants a work to be used and reused. Also, just an additional note that this issue is the same in Quebec as in the ROC. There shouldn't be any major differences to account for, as copyright is entirely statutory law (a "creature of statute"), set out by the federal Copyright Act. Now, getting back to the motion, we should certainly be clear on our wording, but my feeling is that the technical legal aspects would best be worked out further along in this process. Once the city is actually on-board with making their data open, I'm sure their lawyers will want to participate in the process of setting out the actual license terms; at that time, their might be another battle to be fought on this issue, but that's the next step... For now, for the wording, my suggestion is to simply steer away from terms that are loaded with contentious legal connotations. State that we want works to be free of "copyright restrictions" rather than free of copyright, and we want works released to the "public commons" rather than "public domain". Kent On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |