headers
Jonathan Gray | 1 Oct 14:59

Data put under CC-BY in MashupAustralia competition

Hi all,

I recently blogged about the MashupAustralia competition, which was
announced yesterday:

  http://blog.okfn.org/2009/10/01/australian-government-releases-open-data-for-mashupaustralia-competition/

The competition is putting out lots of open data to encourage innovate
re-uses - which is great news!

Lots of the data is being released under CC-BY. On the competition
home page, Cameron Neylon raises the question of whether this is
appropriate for data, sparking off debate with Mia Garlick, organiser
of competition and ex-Creative Commons counsel:

  http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/30/your-invitation-to-mashupaustralia/#comment-1818

Her basic argument seems to me to be that CC licenses are not "mere
(copyright) licenses" but are also contracts - in which case CC-BY
offers legal protection. Its seems that the rationale for doing this
is that government departments want attribution.

Would be great to have thoughts and opinions of people here!

--

-- 
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://www.okfn.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 1 Oct 15:21

Re: Data put under CC-BY in MashupAustralia competition

Absolutely Cameron! Big kudos to the Australian government for opening
up so much data! Of course the main thing now is that the competition
generates compelling services and applications - that will in some way
be useful for ordinary citizens.

I was mainly curious to follow up the conversation that you started
with Mia - and to see what others thought. I figured this list, of all
lists, would be a pretty good place to continue the discussion. I am
not an expert, and would be interested to hear what lawyers and legal
experts thought about this case, for future reference.

Jonathan

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Cameron Neylon
<cameron.neylon@...> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Yes, there are some potential issues. I think however the important thing
> here is to make sure that people get the kudos for actually liberating this
> data at all. Getting this out of governments, and the Australian government
> in particular is tough, so some concerns about whether the logistics are
> correct, should be seen in the light of what is a really big achievement,
> both in Australia and increasingly in other governments.
>
> Its a move in the right direction but we shouldn't let our geeky obsession
> with licences overtake the support for the principles.
>
> Cheers
>
> Cameron
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mr. Puneet Kishor | 1 Oct 15:19

Re: Data put under CC-BY in MashupAustralia competition


On Oct 1, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I recently blogged about the MashupAustralia competition, which was
> announced yesterday:
>
>  http://blog.okfn.org/2009/10/01/australian-government-releases-open-data-for-mashupaustralia-competition/
>
> The competition is putting out lots of open data to encourage innovate
> re-uses - which is great news!
>
> Lots of the data is being released under CC-BY.

I read this yesterday and cringed. "Oh no! another contractual quest  
for recognition!"

> On the competition
> home page, Cameron Neylon raises the question of whether this is
> appropriate for data, sparking off debate with Mia Garlick, organiser
> of competition and ex-Creative Commons counsel:
>
>  http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/30/your-invitation-to-mashupaustralia/#comment-1818
>
> Her basic argument seems to me to be that CC licenses are not "mere
> (copyright) licenses" but are also contracts - in which case CC-BY
> offers legal protection. Its seems that the rationale for doing this
> is that government departments want attribution.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Mr. Puneet Kishor | 1 Oct 15:30

Re: Data put under CC-BY in MashupAustralia competition


On Oct 1, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:

>
> On Oct 1, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I recently blogged about the MashupAustralia competition, which was
>> announced yesterday:
>>
>> http://blog.okfn.org/2009/10/01/australian-government-releases-open-data-for-mashupaustralia-competition/
>>
>> The competition is putting out lots of open data to encourage  
>> innovate
>> re-uses - which is great news!
>>
>> Lots of the data is being released under CC-BY.
>
> I read this yesterday and cringed. "Oh no! another contractual quest  
> for recognition!"
>
>
>> On the competition
>> home page, Cameron Neylon raises the question of whether this is
>> appropriate for data, sparking off debate with Mia Garlick, organiser
>> of competition and ex-Creative Commons counsel:
>>
>> http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/09/30/your-invitation-to-mashupaustralia/#comment-1818
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 3 Oct 15:05

Open data in Portland

It looks like there are moves towards open data in Portland, Oregon!

Jonathan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sromalewski <sr218@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Subject: [open-government-nyc:272] Portland adopts policy of
publishing structured data, and other  opendata notes
To: Open Government NYC <open-government-nyc@...>

Portland is the latest major city to officially adopt a policy of
publishing "structured standardized data", among other things.  See
http://siliconflorist.com/2009/09/30/portland-oregon-open-city-officially-embracing-open-data-open-source/
and http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/city_of_portland_oregon_officially_backs_open_stru.php

Another item on open data that came up today is a publication of the
National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO),
titled "A Call to Action for State Government: Guidance for Opening
the Doors to State Data".  Here's the direct link:
http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-DataTransparency.pdf

I also noticed that the Politicker had a piece about Bloomberg's
"review" of his own Mayor's management reports (http://
www.politickerny.com/5484/bloomberg-numbers).  He's quoted in the
piece disparaging the idea of publishing raw data.  But it's
disingenous.  I commented (http://www.politickerny.com/5484/bloomberg-
numbers#comment-33963) that you could easily change the mayor's quote
at the end of the piece to 'The best way to reveal something is to
publish the raw data, and that'll give watchdogs the ability to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 3 Oct 15:06

Open textbook bill - $15 million for open textbooks?

This is very interesting. I'd like to hear more about their definition
of 'open license' - and whether this is effectively compliant with the
Open Knowledge Definition!

Jonathan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ben Moskowitz <benrito@...>
Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Subject: [FCF-Education] US government support of OER
To: fcf-education@...

from TechLaw:
http://pblog.bna.com/techlaw/2009/09/sen-durbin-proposes-15-million-in-grants-for-open-textbook-creators.html

Sen. Durbin Proposes $15 Million in Grants for Open Textbook Creators

Last week Sen. Richard Durbin introduced a bill (S. 1714) that would
create a $15 million federal grant program for "open textbooks." The
bill is a further example of continuing federal government interest in
openness, transparency, and using information-sharing technologies to
promote social aims.

Sen. Durbin is promoting his bill as a means to drive down the price of
college textbooks, but I think it is going to have more far-reaching
consequences than that. If it passes.

The bill defines "open textbook" as "a textbook or set of course
materials in electronic format designed for use in a college course at
an institution of higher education that is licensed under an open license."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rufus Pollock | 5 Oct 14:07
Gravatar

Re: Data put under CC-BY in MashupAustralia competition

2009/10/1 Mr. Puneet Kishor <punkish@...>:
> On Oct 1, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
[...]
>>> Would be great to have thoughts and opinions of people here!
>>
>> Give a person a hammer, and all data starts looking like an opportunity to
>> get attribution.
>>
>> For ages now we have been creating knowledge in academia and giving it
>> away, expecting, but not contractually requiring recognition. The norms of

There's also an awful lot of secrecy and data concealment :)

>> our disciplines have ensured that ripping off someone else's work without
>> giving due credit gets censure that is worse than any contractual penalty
>> could ever be. Ask yourself -- what would you rather? loss of face or some
>> penalty that your contract provides for?

I think it depends: there are those, especially outside of academia,
who may not care much about the "loss of face"

>> Let's look at it another way -- if you have CC-BY data, and I take it but
>> don't give you any attribution (because I am just a prick and don't want to
>> give you attribution, and because norms wash off me like water off a duck),
>> what is it exactly that you are going to do to me? Come after me with what?
>> If your data are really worth any money, sure, bind it in a contract and
>> wrap it in a license and track it with a beacon to make sure you get your
>> pound of flesh. But otherwise, it is just pointless.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Hinde ten Berge | 6 Oct 11:44
Picon

Free Culture Forum

The first International Free Culture Forum will take place in Barcelona
from October 29 to November 1 2009. This event will bring together the
main organizations and most active voices in the world of Free Culture
and Free Knowledge to set common agendas and strategies.

The Free Knowledge Institute co-organises the Free Culture Forum and
invites you to be part of this unique and historical moment.

http://www.fcforum.net/

***

"The battle for access to information and the Internet is the mother of
all battles, the one that will allow us to keep going autonomously and
creatively in crisis times, regardless of what the powers that be
"organise" for their own interest..."
/Zaphod Beeblebrox, Digital Thoughts/

Because in times of crisis, the European Parliament is discussing how to
take away one of the few remaining ways that allow citizens to get ahead
– open access to the Internet – and to hand it over to the
multinationals (this is not science fiction; it is happening now -
follow the links below [1]);

Because we must be able to benefit from spreading our works without
middlemen;

Because we are fed up with plundering by royalties management organisations;

Because artists are being used as an excuse to restrict legal rights to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 6 Oct 15:13

IRC meeting tonight (2009-10-06) from 1800 BST (1700 GMT) on #okfn at irc.oftc.net

Hi all,

We're planning to meet up tonight on the #okfn IRC channel
(irc.oftc.net) at 1800 BST (1900 CEST).

You can connect using a web browser at: http://ur1.ca/4fh

If anyone's got anything they'd like to discuss, propose or work on,
please drop in!

Details of this and other (virtual) events are on the Google Calendar at:

  http://wiki.okfn.org/Events

--

-- 
Jonathan Gray

Community Coordinator
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://www.okfn.org
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 8 Oct 13:39

OKF Director Rufus Pollock in two Guardian articles this week!

List members may be interested to hear that Rufus's economic work has
been featured in two separate articles in the Guardian - both
published yesterday. One on the length of copyright, and one on
postcode data.

"So why hasn't there been a national debate about what is good not for
the long-term holders of copyrights (rarely the original artists) but
for the economy as a whole? The Gowers report, published in December
2006, asked what was the length of copyright that was fair to writers
and artists (who would be able to remix others' works), and also to
consumers who would benefit from lower prices and greater
availability. Gowers concluded that there was no case for extending
copyright beyond 50 years, so it urged the UK government – and the EU
– to retain that period. But if you look at the evidence within the
report, which hardly anyone did at the time, there were two
independent surveys by economists. One said the correct term to
maximise economic welfare was 21 years, almost the same as patents.
The second said it should be only seven. A separate analysis – heavy
with maths – by Rufus Pollock of Cambridge suggested about 14 years.
Gowers admitted later they had chosen 50 years because it was more
politically realistic. But the government ignored it in favour of an
extension beyond 50 years. So much for evidence-based policy."

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-copyright-term

"Rufus Pollock, a Cambridge economist who co-wrote a study for the
government on the economic benefit of making trading funds' data free,
calculates that making PostZon free would bring an economic benefit
50% greater than Royal Mail's present revenues."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane