2009/9/21 CountCulture <[email protected]>: >> Couple of things that would be useful first though: >> >> 1. Would it be possible to make explicit the "openness" situation with >> regard to the data you've got, for example by applying a license such >> as the PDDL (<http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/>). It is >> important to remember that free access does not equal openness. Just >> like for code, open data requires more than just availability, in >> particular it needs explicit licensing. > > > I entirely agree -- that's what I'd like to work towards, although I'm not > sure I can unilaterally apply an open licence if the data I'm using is not > open.
I think you want to be clear here about you are licensing: you are taking data from elsewhere, cleaning it up, normalizing it, and creating a database. As the creator of that DB you are in a position to license it. Obviously, you are reusing existing data/databases then there is a question as to your ability to license the whole (just like any other derivative works ...) However it would still be good to put up a notice saying: for all the material in which I have any rights I am applying this open license. To the extent that I reused material from here, here and here you'll have to consult their licensing agreements. > Obviously this is a problem when much of the info is 'copyright XXX Council' > -- which is why we need to get the underlying rights situation sorted out. > In addition some of the data sets used are not open -- for example the > population figures are non-commercial, other bits are Click-Use, and still > further bits are non-commercial share-alike (e.g. local Authority > boundaries, which I'll be adding soon). Click-use is (or soon should be) "open". Is the NC SA from OS? > My plan -- apart from get bodies such as APPSI to push for opening the > underlying data (primarily local authorities and core infrastructure > datasets) is to be explicit about what data is under what licence, and then > we're being as open as we can. Right. That in itself is useful! > Once the issues are resolved I plan on making it clear that the database > rights should be on the db licence that's equivalent to CC share-alike -- > though need to think about whether it will be non-commercial or not (at the > moment Openly Local is just me and a bit of spare server space so costs > aren't an issue, but may become so in the future). There is just such an Attribution Share-Alike license which the OKF's Jordan Hatcher co-authored: <http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/> > 2. Would you mind adding an open data "button": > <http://www.opendefinition.org/buttons/> to make it even clearer to > users that the data is open. > > > Would love to if we could get the issues above sorted out -- or find a > solution that allows us to do this.. Any pressure you can put on key people > gratefully received. I think the the Open Data button would be appropriate if you are openly licensing the data/database in which you have rights as long you make clear that there may be restrictions coming from the underlying databases from which you have sourced material. Regards, Rufus _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
