http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/The-case-for-context-in-defining-Open-Data-tp5474p5510.html
negative impacts on the species in question. Depending on the
seeing that the cost of releasing it far outweighs the benefit. The
_Even_ if the public funded the research. The greater public good is
> Russell and all,
>
> I'm not directly familiar with the Winusk case but I am a bit familiar with
> indigenous knowledge issues overall and I think the question there may be
> found in different approaches to the matter of what is being made "open".
> The simplified definitions are that "data in context" is "information" and
> that "information with a purpose" is "knowledge"... For the Winusk as for
> many indigenous peoples what others might take as "data" concerning specific
> physical features of the land because of their particular intense
> involvement with specific land areas becomes "information" and what for
> others might be generalized and neutral "information" about particular
> features of the land, for them would become "knowledge" concerning for
> example supportive of hunting/fishing, spiritually related landmarks
> etc.etc.
>
> Many indigenous peoples are extremely protective of their "indigenous
> knowledge" for precisely those reasons since that knowledge is their way of
> living with their land.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
[hidden email]
> [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell
> McOrmond
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:15 PM
> To:
[hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] The case for context in defining Open
> Data
>
>
> On 13-02-26 01:58 PM, Ted Strauss wrote:
>> For those who couldn't access the link, the post is up at:
>>
http://blog.trudat.co/the-case-for-context/>
> I'll suggest this same conversation happened in the Free Software movement
> decades ago, even before the term "open source" was coined, and I'm
> skeptical the "open data" movement is all that different. It is good to
> have these conversations, but hopefully the "open data" movement will learn
> from the more senior Free Software movement.
>
>
>
> When you move beyond making data or software able to be collaborated with
> a greater audience you will always run into political disagreements about
> wanting this software/data to only be used for "good" and not "bad" things.
> You then quickly find out that we do *NOT* all agree on what "good" or "bad"
> means, and that as soon as we engage in these conversations to limit "bad"
> uses any ability to collaborate breaks down.
>
> In the FLOSS movement you have people collaborating on the creation of
> multi-purpose software who often have strongly opposing ideas of what a
> "good" use of software is. The fact that software could be used for a "bad"
> purpose, as personally defined by one of the participants, must be ignored
> in order for the collaboration and software to exist in the first place.
>
> Thus I reject the idea that we should look at opening as being related "to
> achieve one's goals in the context of a particular situation" given
> collaboration will happen between diverse (and sometimes strongly
> opposing) goals and be used in diverse contexts. To focus on these things
> will only slow down or cease the opening of the software/data, pushing
> software/data towards the alternative.
>
> The alternative is that the only software that gets written or data that
> is collected is controlled by proprietary suppliers, with the software/data
> benefiting the interests of those suppliers and not any larger public(s).
> In my mind, no matter what your particular personal goals may be, this is a
> bad outcome for anyone who isn't that supplier.
>
>
> The Weenusk First Nation is worried that if mapping data about their
> land is made more widely known, then this will harm them. This ignores
> the fact that the data is likely already commercially available to mining
> companies, so it isn't like this is going to make the land any more open to
> that type of exploitation than it was before. Even if the government
> refused to sell to commercial entities (a highly unlikely scenario in the
> current political climate), those with the greatest financial incentives may
> do their own proprietary mapping which will serve their proprietary
> interests.
>
>
> What opening data does is make the data available to *others*. Those
> *others* can put the data to what the WFN considers "good" purposes or "bad"
> purposes, but given mining is one of the greatest concerns expressed (and
> they already have the data) it seems to reason that the potential new (and
> as yet possibly unimagined) "good" uses the data can be put to is likely
> going to outweigh the "bad".
>
> I've said this already, but I strongly believe WFN's concerns about
> mapping date being more widely published is misplaced -- if anything, less
> access to data for potentially "good" purposes will harm WFN's ultimate
> interests.
>
>
> --
> Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <
http://www.flora.ca/> Please help
> us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of
> Information Technology. Sign the petition!
>
http://l.c11.ca/ict>
> "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
> manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
> portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
> _______________________________________________
> 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