Share-Alike
Locked
 
|
Hello All, I am at MontrealOuvert.net and we are happy to announce that Montreal will soon have an open-data policy and portal. Generally speaking, it looks very promising, however, they are planning to include a Share-alike clause in the licence. While we have some reservations about this, we would like your help to formulate an argument on why this is not ideal. Please send us comments, links and other information as soon as possible as the city is looking to move fast. Many thanks, Jonathan MontrealOuvert.net |
|
|
Very problematic.
I believe this will restrict the ability to combine this (Montreal) data with data from other sources that have licenses that will not allow this. Kind of limiting for data mashups. I would advise not to do this. -Glen Newton http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/ - On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hello All, > I am at MontrealOuvert.net and we are happy to announce that Montreal will > soon have an open-data policy and portal. Generally speaking, it looks very > promising, however, they are planning to include a Share-alike clause in the > licence. > While we have some reservations about this, we would like your help to > formulate an argument on why this is not ideal. Please send us comments, > links and other information as soon as possible as the city is looking to > move fast. > Many thanks, > Jonathan > MontrealOuvert.net > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > -- - |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jonathan Brun-2
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello All, > I am at MontrealOuvert.net and we are happy to announce that Montreal will > soon have an open-data policy and portal. Small correction: We had a great update from the city this week, but we're not actually able to say that we'll have a portal soon because the political level hasn't touched this yet. We'll have to keep our fingers crossed until we hear from them (in October). > Generally speaking, it looks very > promising, however, they are planning to include a Share-alike clause in the > licence. > > While we have some reservations about this, we would like your help to > formulate an argument on why this is not ideal. Please send us comments, > links and other information as soon as possible as the city is looking to > move fast. > Many thanks, > Jonathan > MontrealOuvert.net > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > |
|
|
Arguments against:
Small steps towards OD is always a good move though. You need to ensure that in all your communications with the city, you're making it clear that this is step one, and not the end goal. Once the G4+BC synchronize their licenses, which is coming very soon, Open Data Ottawa/the City of Ottawa would be happy to write letters/help your efforts getting Montreal on the same license. We could also draft you some letters now if you think it's what will work best.
Great work, Ouvert! A Alex Lougheed Organizer, Open Data Ottawa m. <a href="tel:613%20700%202358" value="+16137002358" target="_blank">613 700 2358
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
What has Ottawa ended up with on Open data? My understanding is it has some sort of licence. I'm interested as I have a use for some of the data.
Thanks John On 16 September 2011 18:08, Alex Lougheed <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Jonathan Brun-2
As Glen already wrote, the clearest objection is that building
something from multiple data sources -- which is pretty central to open-data projects, obviously -- starts to require a law degree, if it's even possible. I've read the full text and "human-readable summary" [1] of the ODbL [2], which is the only open data share-alike license I'm aware of [3], and I still have absolutely no idea what I could or couldn't do with data licensed under it. Let's say -- non-hypothetical example! -- I'm building a national electoral-district locator. That means getting geodata on districts from various governments, reprojecting and normalizing them, and putting them into a single database. If I read the ODbL correctly, if Montreal's districts were released under the ODbL, I could include them only if all other cities released data either under the same license or under a license for which the "authorized proxy" of the city of Montreal has published a "public statement of acceptance of compatibility." And few things sound like more fun to me than asking an authorized proxy for a public statement in order to be able to build something. Basically, this kind of clause means that many, if not most, open data applications we've seen so far would be either forbidden, or would require the creator to retain counsel to figure out whether they were forbidden or not. But I'm curious as to what you think the motivations are behind such a clause. I would have expected a "non-commercial use only" clause rather than a share-alike one -- do you think that the basic intent in suggesting this clause is to prevent other people from making money off their data? [1] Their wording. Not sure if the dig at lawyers is intentional or unintentional. [2] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ [3] Creative Commons is made for creative works, not data On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hello All, > I am at MontrealOuvert.net and we are happy to announce that Montreal will > soon have an open-data policy and portal. Generally speaking, it looks very > promising, however, they are planning to include a Share-alike clause in the > licence. > While we have some reservations about this, we would like your help to > formulate an argument on why this is not ideal. Please send us comments, > links and other information as soon as possible as the city is looking to > move fast. > Many thanks, > Jonathan > MontrealOuvert.net > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > |
|
|
Response inline
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Michael Mulley <[hidden email]> wrote: > As Glen already wrote, the clearest objection is that building > something from multiple data sources -- which is pretty central to > open-data projects, obviously -- starts to require a law degree, if > it's even possible. > > I've read the full text and "human-readable summary" [1] of the ODbL > [2], which is the only open data share-alike license I'm aware of [3], > and I still have absolutely no idea what I could or couldn't do with > data licensed under it. Let's say -- non-hypothetical example! -- I'm > building a national electoral-district locator. That means getting > geodata on districts from various governments, reprojecting and > normalizing them, and putting them into a single database. If I read > the ODbL correctly, if Montreal's districts were released under the > ODbL, I could include them only if all other cities released data > either under the same license or under a license for which the > "authorized proxy" of the city of Montreal has published a "public > statement of acceptance of compatibility." And few things sound like > more fun to me than asking an authorized proxy for a public statement > in order to be able to build something. > > Basically, this kind of clause means that many, if not most, open data > applications we've seen so far would be either forbidden, or would > require the creator to retain counsel to figure out whether they were > forbidden or not. > > But I'm curious as to what you think the motivations are behind such a > clause. I would have expected a "non-commercial use only" clause > rather than a share-alike one -- do you think that the basic intent in > suggesting this clause is to prevent other people from making money > off their data? No - they're fine with commercial use for applications. I think they're trying to ensure no "evil" database resellers come along, include their data in their offering and make money without adding any value. But that is my own interpretation (I was at the meeting where this was discussed). Thanks for the feedback! > > [1] Their wording. Not sure if the dig at lawyers is intentional or > unintentional. > [2] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ > [3] Creative Commons is made for creative works, not data > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hello All, >> I am at MontrealOuvert.net and we are happy to announce that Montreal will >> soon have an open-data policy and portal. Generally speaking, it looks very >> promising, however, they are planning to include a Share-alike clause in the >> licence. >> While we have some reservations about this, we would like your help to >> formulate an argument on why this is not ideal. Please send us comments, >> links and other information as soon as possible as the city is looking to >> move fast. >> Many thanks, >> Jonathan >> MontrealOuvert.net >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > |
|
|
+1 on the discussion, my own feeling is share alike is deeply
problematic and will basically mean no commercial interest will touch the data, neither will many non-profits. I think their concern is interesting. If someone wants to resell their (free) data it is probably because they have done some value add - this is actually a good outcome. Always hard to explain this to governments though... The share alike feature does appear in the Vancouver license used by Toronto, Ottawa and Edmonton, but I think all these cities are going to move off of it in the not too distant future. Cheers, dave On 11-09-16 3:18 PM, Michael Lenczner wrote: > Response inline > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Michael Mulley > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> As Glen already wrote, the clearest objection is that building >> something from multiple data sources -- which is pretty central to >> open-data projects, obviously -- starts to require a law degree, if >> it's even possible. >> >> I've read the full text and "human-readable summary" [1] of the ODbL >> [2], which is the only open data share-alike license I'm aware of [3], >> and I still have absolutely no idea what I could or couldn't do with >> data licensed under it. Let's say -- non-hypothetical example! -- I'm >> building a national electoral-district locator. That means getting >> geodata on districts from various governments, reprojecting and >> normalizing them, and putting them into a single database. If I read >> the ODbL correctly, if Montreal's districts were released under the >> ODbL, I could include them only if all other cities released data >> either under the same license or under a license for which the >> "authorized proxy" of the city of Montreal has published a "public >> statement of acceptance of compatibility." And few things sound like >> more fun to me than asking an authorized proxy for a public statement >> in order to be able to build something. >> >> Basically, this kind of clause means that many, if not most, open data >> applications we've seen so far would be either forbidden, or would >> require the creator to retain counsel to figure out whether they were >> forbidden or not. >> >> But I'm curious as to what you think the motivations are behind such a >> clause. I would have expected a "non-commercial use only" clause >> rather than a share-alike one -- do you think that the basic intent in >> suggesting this clause is to prevent other people from making money >> off their data? > No - they're fine with commercial use for applications. I think > they're trying to ensure no "evil" database resellers come along, > include their data in their offering and make money without adding any > value. But that is my own interpretation (I was at the meeting where > this was discussed). > > Thanks for the feedback! >> [1] Their wording. Not sure if the dig at lawyers is intentional or >> unintentional. >> [2] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ >> [3] Creative Commons is made for creative works, not data >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jonathan Brun<[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Hello All, >>> I am at MontrealOuvert.net and we are happy to announce that Montreal will >>> soon have an open-data policy and portal. Generally speaking, it looks very >>> promising, however, they are planning to include a Share-alike clause in the >>> licence. >>> While we have some reservations about this, we would like your help to >>> formulate an argument on why this is not ideal. Please send us comments, >>> links and other information as soon as possible as the city is looking to >>> move fast. >>> Many thanks, >>> Jonathan >>> MontrealOuvert.net >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 |
|
|
Added to the share alike clause, there is also a "by"/attribution
clause. Thus if an evil data reseller wants to sell the DB with no real added-value, he will still have to give the credits to the City... thus anybody could backtrack to the free data of the city But the point brought by David is interesting: all the other major cities have this clause so that's probably why Montreal's officials follow this path. David, what are the signs that make you think the other cities will move this off ? More general question: should we advice the City of Montreal to follow the Vancouver licence if it's already used by several other cities ? Steph Le 11-09-16 19:18, David Eaves a écrit : > +1 on the discussion, my own feeling is share alike is deeply > problematic and will basically mean no commercial interest will touch > the data, neither will many non-profits. > > I think their concern is interesting. If someone wants to resell their > (free) data it is probably because they have done some value add - > this is actually a good outcome. Always hard to explain this to > governments though... > > The share alike feature does appear in the Vancouver license used by > Toronto, Ottawa and Edmonton, but I think all these cities are going > to move off of it in the not too distant future. > > Cheers, > dave > > On 11-09-16 3:18 PM, Michael Lenczner wrote: >> Response inline >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Michael Mulley >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> As Glen already wrote, the clearest objection is that building >>> something from multiple data sources -- which is pretty central to >>> open-data projects, obviously -- starts to require a law degree, if >>> it's even possible. >>> >>> I've read the full text and "human-readable summary" [1] of the ODbL >>> [2], which is the only open data share-alike license I'm aware of [3], >>> and I still have absolutely no idea what I could or couldn't do with >>> data licensed under it. Let's say -- non-hypothetical example! -- I'm >>> building a national electoral-district locator. That means getting >>> geodata on districts from various governments, reprojecting and >>> normalizing them, and putting them into a single database. If I read >>> the ODbL correctly, if Montreal's districts were released under the >>> ODbL, I could include them only if all other cities released data >>> either under the same license or under a license for which the >>> "authorized proxy" of the city of Montreal has published a "public >>> statement of acceptance of compatibility." And few things sound like >>> more fun to me than asking an authorized proxy for a public statement >>> in order to be able to build something. >>> >>> Basically, this kind of clause means that many, if not most, open data >>> applications we've seen so far would be either forbidden, or would >>> require the creator to retain counsel to figure out whether they were >>> forbidden or not. >>> >>> But I'm curious as to what you think the motivations are behind such a >>> clause. I would have expected a "non-commercial use only" clause >>> rather than a share-alike one -- do you think that the basic intent in >>> suggesting this clause is to prevent other people from making money >>> off their data? >> No - they're fine with commercial use for applications. I think >> they're trying to ensure no "evil" database resellers come along, >> include their data in their offering and make money without adding any >> value. But that is my own interpretation (I was at the meeting where >> this was discussed). >> >> Thanks for the feedback! >>> [1] Their wording. Not sure if the dig at lawyers is intentional or >>> unintentional. >>> [2] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ >>> [3] Creative Commons is made for creative works, not data >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jonathan >>> Brun<[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> Hello All, >>>> I am at MontrealOuvert.net and we are happy to announce that >>>> Montreal will >>>> soon have an open-data policy and portal. Generally speaking, it >>>> looks very >>>> promising, however, they are planning to include a Share-alike >>>> clause in the >>>> licence. >>>> While we have some reservations about this, we would like your help to >>>> formulate an argument on why this is not ideal. Please send us >>>> comments, >>>> links and other information as soon as possible as the city is >>>> looking to >>>> move fast. >>>> Many thanks, >>>> Jonathan >>>> MontrealOuvert.net >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > |
|
|
2011/9/16 Stéphane Guidoin <[hidden email]>:
> Added to the share alike clause, there is also a "by"/attribution clause. > Thus if an evil data reseller wants to sell the DB with no real added-value, > he will still have to give the credits to the City... thus anybody could > backtrack to the free data of the city Exactly why this is a non-issue. A proper Open Data license allows commercial re-use, and guarantees proper attribution by all users, re-users and mashers. Open means open to all. Even the evil commercial database types. That's what Open means. There are very few examples (are there any? I can't think of any off the top of my head) where commercial banning (via the license) of re-use of Open data is valid. If some company can make $ by using Open Data, more power to them. As long as it is properly attributed, as per a good license, this is a Good Thing(tm). -Glen :-) PS. For the record, for data I lean BSD, and for code I lean GPL. Because code and data are similar, but different. That said, I've contributed Apache (BSD-like) code to communities where that was what the community had settled on. > > But the point brought by David is interesting: all the other major cities > have this clause so that's probably why Montreal's officials follow this > path. David, what are the signs that make you think the other cities will > move this off ? > > More general question: should we advice the City of Montreal to follow the > Vancouver licence if it's already used by several other cities ? > > Steph > > Le 11-09-16 19:18, David Eaves a écrit : >> >> +1 on the discussion, my own feeling is share alike is deeply problematic >> and will basically mean no commercial interest will touch the data, neither >> will many non-profits. >> >> I think their concern is interesting. If someone wants to resell their >> (free) data it is probably because they have done some value add - this is >> actually a good outcome. Always hard to explain this to governments >> though... >> >> The share alike feature does appear in the Vancouver license used by >> Toronto, Ottawa and Edmonton, but I think all these cities are going to move >> off of it in the not too distant future. >> >> Cheers, >> dave >> >> On 11-09-16 3:18 PM, Michael Lenczner wrote: >>> >>> Response inline >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Michael Mulley >>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> As Glen already wrote, the clearest objection is that building >>>> something from multiple data sources -- which is pretty central to >>>> open-data projects, obviously -- starts to require a law degree, if >>>> it's even possible. >>>> >>>> I've read the full text and "human-readable summary" [1] of the ODbL >>>> [2], which is the only open data share-alike license I'm aware of [3], >>>> and I still have absolutely no idea what I could or couldn't do with >>>> data licensed under it. Let's say -- non-hypothetical example! -- I'm >>>> building a national electoral-district locator. That means getting >>>> geodata on districts from various governments, reprojecting and >>>> normalizing them, and putting them into a single database. If I read >>>> the ODbL correctly, if Montreal's districts were released under the >>>> ODbL, I could include them only if all other cities released data >>>> either under the same license or under a license for which the >>>> "authorized proxy" of the city of Montreal has published a "public >>>> statement of acceptance of compatibility." And few things sound like >>>> more fun to me than asking an authorized proxy for a public statement >>>> in order to be able to build something. >>>> >>>> Basically, this kind of clause means that many, if not most, open data >>>> applications we've seen so far would be either forbidden, or would >>>> require the creator to retain counsel to figure out whether they were >>>> forbidden or not. >>>> >>>> But I'm curious as to what you think the motivations are behind such a >>>> clause. I would have expected a "non-commercial use only" clause >>>> rather than a share-alike one -- do you think that the basic intent in >>>> suggesting this clause is to prevent other people from making money >>>> off their data? >>> >>> No - they're fine with commercial use for applications. I think >>> they're trying to ensure no "evil" database resellers come along, >>> include their data in their offering and make money without adding any >>> value. But that is my own interpretation (I was at the meeting where >>> this was discussed). >>> >>> Thanks for the feedback! >>>> >>>> [1] Their wording. Not sure if the dig at lawyers is intentional or >>>> unintentional. >>>> [2] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ >>>> [3] Creative Commons is made for creative works, not data >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jonathan Brun<[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello All, >>>>> I am at MontrealOuvert.net and we are happy to announce that Montreal >>>>> will >>>>> soon have an open-data policy and portal. Generally speaking, it looks >>>>> very >>>>> promising, however, they are planning to include a Share-alike clause >>>>> in the >>>>> licence. >>>>> While we have some reservations about this, we would like your help to >>>>> formulate an argument on why this is not ideal. Please send us >>>>> comments, >>>>> links and other information as soon as possible as the city is looking >>>>> to >>>>> move fast. >>>>> Many thanks, >>>>> Jonathan >>>>> MontrealOuvert.net >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > -- - http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/ - |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jonathan Brun-2
Hi, I'm with Capitale Ouverte a new group targeting Quebec City.
I think Shake-Alike will be impossible to enforce. If they try to do so, they'll have to invest a lot of labour (money) into policing the web. It's a waste of taxpayer's money. Also it will scare off any serious company into investing in software development based on their data. It increases the legal complexity and therefor increases the business risk of commercializing the app. They won't have the same ROI than with a simpler license. -- Nicolas Roberge Ovologic Inc. [hidden email] Tél.: 418 573-7879 Skype: nroberge Vous voulez qu'on se rencontre? Visitez http://tungle.me/nicolasroberge |
|
|
I think the most powerful argument against SA is to turn the question back around. If there's no strong justification for putting a restriction into a license, why do it?.
Every further restriction you put into a license reduces the ways that a person can use and re-use content, restricting many uses that you might not even envision at the time of licensing. Kent ------------------------------ Kent Mewhort ([hidden email]) On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Nicolas Roberge <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi, I'm with Capitale Ouverte a new group targeting Quebec City. |
|
|
Yes Kent, and that's basically what we asked to the officials: why
not? And the answer is largely "because the others are doing it"
plus some other unclear arguments.
That's the kind of argument that is difficult to circumvent. It means we are in a domain where nobody is really sure of what to add, and then we do as others... Steph Le 11-09-17 08:38, Kent Mewhort a écrit : I think the most powerful argument against SA is to turn the question back around. If there's no strong justification for putting a restriction into a license, why do it?. |
|
|
In reply to this post by john whelan
Le 16 sept. 2011 à 18:13, john whelan a écrit : > What has Ottawa ended up with on Open data? My understanding is it has some sort of licence. I'm interested as I have a use for some of the data. I might be worth to add data here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Data_in_Canada Maybe creating a table City Name | License | Portal | … etc. What are the other categories? -- Karl Dubost Montréal, QC, Canada http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |