All posts in the topic CC vs GPL/BSD licence for geodata? (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in The Open Government Ninjas

Summary

There are 16 posts — by 10 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Gavin Treadgold at Aug 31 15:48 NZST

Posts with files
From	File	Date
Brent Wood	IPY_map.jpg	Aug 31 12:40 NZST

From: paperless Date: Aug 31 10:34 NZST Short link

2009/8/31 <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> I agree we have work (lots) to do here, but we should be working locally
> but keeping an eye on the rest of the world as well. Initiatives like OSM &
> OAM are best served, not by every country going through the exercise of
> coming up with a licence, each slightly different, but by the equivalent of
> the FSF & GPL providing a common, international standard that we all can
> use.
>

Just to confirm, is GPL (or code orientated) licencing best for geodata? My
lay-person's perspective sees mapping information more akin to something
visual that might sit better with a CC licence.

From: Glen Barnes Date: Aug 31 10:47 NZST Short link

Which is what we are doing. The NZGOAL does exactly this - Uses CC as
a base for licensing government data and not trying to reinvent the
wheel.

http://blog.e.govt.nz/index.php/nzgoal/

From: Gavin Treadgold Date: Aug 31 10:51 NZST Short link

On 2009-08-31, at 10:34 , Tim McNamara wrote:
> 2009/8/31 <email obscured>> wrote:
>> I agree we have work (lots) to do here, but we should be working
>> locally
>> but keeping an eye on the rest of the world as well. Initiatives
>> like OSM &
>> OAM are best served, not by every country going through the
>> exercise of
>> coming up with a licence, each slightly different, but by the
>> equivalent of
>> the FSF & GPL providing a common, international standard that we
>> all can
>> use.
>
> Just to confirm, is GPL (or code orientated) licencing best for
> geodata? My
> lay-person's perspective sees mapping information more akin to
> something
> visual that might sit better with a CC licence.

Tim, you're correct, and OSM demonstrates this distinction pretty well.

<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap_License>
> OpenStreetMap data can be used freely under the terms of the
> Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license.
>
> OpenStreetMap software is licensed under the GNU GPL.
>

This is why MFE deserve such a large pat on the back, because they
proactively adopted CC3 for licensing the LCDB, whilst we still have
other agencies such as NZFS using custom licensing agreements that
require a legal opinion before signing and use. Just on the NZ
Localities legal agreement - the agreement itself is appropriate for
other Govt agencies that are using the dataset for emergency response.
What is wrong, is the assumption that anyone else outside of a
response agency (who should be held to strict data updating
requirements and feedback) needs to be held to the same level of legal
agreement for use of the data. In this case, NZFS need to be
encouraged to dual-license the NZ Localities dataset, keep the current
agreement for emergency response agencies, and CC for casual users.

Cheers Gav

From: gnat Date: Aug 31 12:08 NZST Short link

On 30/08/2009, at 3:51 PM, Gavin Treadgold wrote:
> Tim, you're correct, and OSM demonstrates this distinction pretty
> well.
>
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap_License>
>> OpenStreetMap data can be used freely under the terms of the
>> Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license.
>>
>> OpenStreetMap software is licensed under the GNU GPL.

Actually, OSM's building their own license based on CC-BY-SA because
mashups fudge "collective" and "derivative" work issues, and because
OSM want to prohibit reverse engineering from finished products (so
you can't print a map, scan the map, and rebuild the open data points
without the license).

http://geowanking.org/pipermail/geowanking_geowanking.org/2009-May/024485.html
http://geowanking.org/pipermail/geowanking_geowanking.org/2009-June/024510.html

It's a conversation thread, not a summary, so people make arguments
(often badly) and it's hard to find the actual content.  Be warned :)

Open geodata licensing is a direct parallel to open source licensing,
complete with arguments about whether licenses should demand
reciprocity (GPL-esque "you can have my data, but you must release
your changes to it under the same license"), open vs free, and all
that stuff that leads to flames rather than illumination.

Not that we're at that stage yet, but I suggest that geolicensing
disagreements happen on the geowanking list, where there are people
who know all about the uniquely-geo issues and can pour the fire
extinguishing foam of facts on the dangerous conflagrations of
opinion :)

From: Brenda Wallace Date: Aug 31 12:18 NZST Short link

There is a school of though that takes "facts cannot be copyrighted"
and concludes any raw facts in the dataset can be copied at will,
regardless of licence.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Glen <email obscured>> wrote:
> Which is what we are doing. The NZGOAL does exactly this - Uses CC as
> a base for licensing government data and not trying to reinvent the
> wheel.
>
> http://blog.e.govt.nz/index.php/nzgoal/
>
> Glen
> On 31/08/2009, at 10:34 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/31 <email obscured>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree we have work (lots) to do here, but we should be working
>>> locally
>>> but keeping an eye on the rest of the world as well. Initiatives
>>> like OSM &
>>> OAM are best served, not by every country going through the
>>> exercise of
>>> coming up with a licence, each slightly different, but by the
>>> equivalent of
>>> the FSF & GPL providing a common, international standard that we
>>> all can
>>> use.
>>>
>>
>> Just to confirm, is GPL (or code orientated) licencing best for
>> geodata? My
>> lay-person's perspective sees mapping information more akin to
>> something
>> visual that might sit better with a CC licence.
>>
>> timClicks
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/7t3jfG29FgxuzX2kb6wUQb
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/6RtYkkUhTruFDDFjUZk2yq
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>



--
www.br3nda.com
www.coffee.geek.nz
"Support living artists - the dead ones don't need it." - Collette Rene Fergus

From: gnat Date: Aug 31 12:25 NZST Short link

On 30/08/2009, at 5:12 PM, Brenda Wallace wrote:
> There is a school of though that takes "facts cannot be copyrighted"
> and concludes any raw facts in the dataset can be copied at will,
> regardless of licence.

Sadly, it's the law and not schools of thought that matter :)

From: Don Christie Date: Aug 31 12:28 NZST Short link

> Open geodata licensing is a direct parallel to open source licensing,
> complete with arguments about whether licenses should demand
> reciprocity (GPL-esque "you can have my data, but you must release
> your changes to it under the same license"), open vs free, and all
> that stuff that leads to flames rather than illumination.

I don't think Stallman et al see the need to apply the GPL to data or
indeed other copyrighted works.

I *like* the GPL for software because, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, "it's
about the user, stupid".

A nice side effect of its approach is that it also encourages
contributions. The Linus view of the GPL is that it is the *best* way he
knows of to develop good software - he's not really a user freedom kind
of guy :-)

So take your pick, either way, GPL for software is a very good choice.

Taking a user rights focused view on data might lead to some interesting
developments on that licensing front but I doubt a pure GPL would apply.

From: Brenda Wallace Date: Aug 31 12:30 NZST Short link

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Nathan <email obscured>>
wrote:
> On 30/08/2009, at 5:12 PM, Brenda Wallace wrote:
>> There is a school of though that takes "facts cannot be copyrighted"
>> and concludes any raw facts in the dataset can be copied at will,
>> regardless of licence.
>
> Sadly, it's the law and not schools of thought that matter :)

I understood "facts cannot be copyrighted" was the law.
hence this interpretation of the law.

From: Brent Wood Date: Aug 31 12:40 NZST Short link

Hi Tim,

Firstly, apologies for the attachment & length of the post, but I think it is
important to get this issue clearly described & perhaps actively discussed

Secondly I also admit I have not followed this as well as I should have... only
24 hours in a day....


Note that if I release the contents of this message under CC3 with attribution,
anyone including parts of it when responding MUST include an appropriate
acknowlegement, comprising whatever I happen to require... However I refrain
from that & you can all do whatever you want with it :-)

As Glen says, NZGOAL is indeed looking to standardise on CC3, see:
http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/news_and_events/news/nzgoal_released

using the Share Alike licence:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nz/



There are similar efforts in West Island, see:
http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/Building_an_Australasian_Commons_book.pdf

Lets look at the scenario where data is available, & someone wants to put up an
interactive website allowing users to create maps by selecting data from a wide
range of sources.


I am assuming here that organisations do NOT waive their
atribution rights under this licence... under the clause:
"Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or
your use of the work)."

This clause permits the imposition of significant restrictions particularly
regarding on-line use of such data.

This is not a new issue with CC licences for geodata. And given that a map is
essentially a data mashup, non-spatial data which is derived from several
sources, to generate a composite analysis or derived (secondary) datasets,
again, which parts are attributed to who, & how is the attribution described
within the resulting dataset?

When data is supplied via OGC standard web services such as WMS or WFS which
allow a client app to request & display data, attribution is difficult or
impossible. A single on screen map can potentially have data from NASA, Google,
LINZ, MFE, plus others seamlessly included, transparently to the user or end
client.

How is attribution managed in such cases?
Is the website provider or the end user who created the end product liable if
an output is incorrectly attributed?
Which parts of an image are attributed to which source dataset?

With OSM, attribution has been a stumbling block for the use of LINZ roading
data. CC3 does not necessarily resolve this.


For a real example see the attached image from a website (you don't have access
to it yet - but I'm working on that :-).

It is a simple OpenLayers map, where the user can select from a list of layers
to add to the map. Simple, effective and a pretty common example of such things
these days.... Let's assume each layer comes from a different organisation, all
of which use a CC licence requiring attribution.

De I then have to implement a popup for every layer describing its attribution?
And once someone downloads the map & uses it in a report or presentation, or
their own website, how can they maintain the attribution, or perhaps identify
which pixels came from which source?

So, from a spatial data or data mashup perspective, attribution is still a
problem, and CC3 does not recognise or deal with this well, if at all, so is
not an ideal solution.

As far as I'm concerned attribution for a Govt Dept is all about branding, and
their job should be to make the stuff available & not require branding before
anyone can use it. (Note that a waiver/disclamer of liability is NOT an
attribution)

I suggest the CC3 licences for NZ should include a non-attribution version
(they all include attribution AFAIK at present), or at the very least there
should be a firm Goverment policy against requiring attribution or a standard
minimal attribution which supports this sort of use of the data.


CC3 is a big step forward in licencing Govt data to make them available &
reuseable, but not effectively in a Web 2.0 environment, and while I applaud
the efforts of those who have got us this far, I think there is still some way
to go.


Cheers,

  Brent Wood

The following file was added to this topic:

IPY_map.jpg (image/jpeg, 106KB)

From: Gavin Treadgold Date: Aug 31 12:56 NZST Short link

On 2009-08-31, at 12:07 , Nathan Torkington wrote:

> Actually, OSM's building their own license based on CC-BY-SA because
> mashups fudge "collective" and "derivative" work issues, and because
> OSM want to prohibit reverse engineering from finished products (so
> you can't print a map, scan the map, and rebuild the open data points
> without the license).
>
> Open geodata licensing is a direct parallel to open source licensing,
> complete with arguments about whether licenses should demand
> reciprocity (GPL-esque "you can have my data, but you must release
> your changes to it under the same license"), open vs free, and all
> that stuff that leads to flames rather than illumination.

Yep - I thought after I posted that it was a bit brief, and there are
more issues at play here.

A number of the GPS mappers have had unpleasant problems with the way
their data has been used. One particular problem has been around the
sale of what are effectively map binaries. Raw vector data could be
considered the source, but to make use of the vector data in a GPS,
they actually need to be processed into a file that the GPS can
understand. This has prompted a number of open GPS map projects to
adopt the Unofficial Map Project licence.

<http://mapcenter2.cgpsmapper.com/ump.php>

Two particulars issues were shifty characters distributing the binary
only, and not making purchasers aware of the community, and open
access. The other being charging near-commercial fees.

On 2009-08-31, at 12:30 , Brenda Wallace wrote:
> I understood "facts cannot be copyrighted" was the law.
> hence this interpretation of the law.

Facts cannot be copyrighted, but representations (e.g. databases and
datasets) can. E.g. you can't take a copyright set of factual data and
do what you want with it.

Cheers Gav

From: Andrew Watkins Date: Aug 31 12:58 NZST Short link

Doesn't non attribution work against open data?
One of our (NIWA) current criticisms is that we publish graphics on the web
site that do not allow access to the underlying source data.  Something that
could be improved upon by providing a matching feed for the data source (
plus documentation, SLA, license, metadata etc).  If someone uses that feed
in a mashup then they potentially commit the same sin of publishing
interpreted data without giving access to the underlying data ( and
metadata).

References to papers in publications are cited in a formal way.  perhaps it
should be possible to have a citations link in a mashup that provides links
to the source urls - and by consequence also meets the attribution
requirement.

In fact one of the obstacles to our publishing open data is that the same
issue occurs on the internal network - data is processed into images which
are then pushed to the web site decoupled from the source data and metadata
- thus making it difficult for us to open up the original data.  Just
documenting the sources of information adequately is proving to be a
challenge.

Andrew


2009/8/31 <email obscured>>

> Hi Tim,
>
> Firstly, apologies for the attachment & length of the post, but I think it
> is important to get this issue clearly described & perhaps actively
> discussed
>
> Secondly I also admit I have not followed this as well as I should have...
> only 24 hours in a day....
>
>
> Note that if I release the contents of this message under CC3 with
> attribution, anyone including parts of it when responding MUST include an
> appropriate acknowlegement, comprising whatever I happen to require...
> However I refrain from that & you can all do whatever you want with it :-)
>
> As Glen says, NZGOAL is indeed looking to standardise on CC3, see:
> http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/news_and_events/news/nzgoal_released
>
> using the Share Alike licence:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nz/
>
>
>
> There are similar efforts in West Island, see:
>
>
http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/Building_an_Australasian_Commons_book.pdf
>
> Lets look at the scenario where data is available, & someone wants to put
> up an interactive website allowing users to create maps by selecting data
> from a wide range of sources.
>
>
> I am assuming here that organisations do NOT waive their
> atribution rights under this licence... under the clause:
> "Attribution  You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
> author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you
> or your use of the work)."
>
> This clause permits the imposition of significant restrictions particularly
> regarding on-line use of such data.
>
> This is not a new issue with CC licences for geodata. And given that a map
> is essentially a data mashup, non-spatial data which is derived from several
> sources, to generate a composite analysis or derived (secondary) datasets,
> again, which parts are attributed to who, & how is the attribution described
> within the resulting dataset?
>
> When data is supplied via OGC standard web services such as WMS or WFS
> which allow a client app to request & display data, attribution is difficult
> or impossible. A single on screen map can potentially have data from NASA,
> Google, LINZ, MFE, plus others seamlessly included, transparently to the
> user or end client.
>
> How is attribution managed in such cases?
> Is the website provider or the end user who created the end product liable
> if an output is incorrectly attributed?
> Which parts of an image are attributed to which source dataset?
>
> With OSM, attribution has been a stumbling block for the use of LINZ
> roading data. CC3 does not necessarily resolve this.
>
>
> For a real example see the attached image from a website (you don't have
> access to it yet - but I'm working on that :-).
>
> It is a simple OpenLayers map, where the user can select from a list of
> layers to add to the map. Simple, effective and a pretty common example of
> such things these days.... Let's assume each layer comes from a different
> organisation, all of which use a CC licence requiring attribution.
>
> De I then have to implement a popup for every layer describing its
> attribution? And once someone downloads the map & uses it in a report or
> presentation, or their own website, how can they maintain the attribution,
> or perhaps identify which pixels came from which source?
>
> So, from a spatial data or data mashup perspective, attribution is still a
> problem, and CC3 does not recognise or deal with this well, if at all, so is
> not an ideal solution.
>
> As far as I'm concerned attribution for a Govt Dept is all about branding,
> and their job should be to make the stuff available & not require branding
> before anyone can use it. (Note that a waiver/disclamer of liability is NOT
> an attribution)
>
> I suggest the CC3 licences for NZ should include a non-attribution version
> (they all include attribution AFAIK at present), or at the very least there
> should be a firm Goverment policy against requiring attribution or a
> standard minimal attribution which supports this sort of use of the data.
>
>
> CC3 is a big step forward in licencing Govt data to make them available &
> reuseable, but not effectively in a Web 2.0 environment, and while I applaud
> the efforts of those who have got us this far, I think there is still some
> way to go.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>  Brent Wood
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/31/09, Tim McNamara <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> > From: Tim McNamara <email obscured>>
> > Subject: [ninjas] CC vs GPL/BSD licence for geodata?
> > To: <email obscured>
> > Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 10:34 AM
> > 2009/8/31 <email obscured>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree we have work (lots) to do here, but we should
> > be working locally
> > > but keeping an eye on the rest of the world as well.
> > Initiatives like OSM &
> > > OAM are best served, not by every country going
> > through the exercise of
> > > coming up with a licence, each slightly different, but
> > by the equivalent of
> > > the FSF & GPL providing a common, international
> > standard that we all can
> > > use.
> > >
> >
> > Just to confirm, is GPL (or code orientated) licencing best
> > for geodata? My
> > lay-person's perspective sees mapping information more akin
> > to something
> > visual that might sit better with a CC licence.
> >
> > timClicks
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> > https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/7t3jfG29FgxuzX2kb6wUQb
> >
> > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
> >
> > Start your own free groups and site with
> > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
> >
> > Host your own online groups site with
> > GroupServer http://groupserver.org
> >
> The Open Government Ninjas now contains the following file
>
>    https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/img/904714-2009-08-31T004034Z
>    Name: IPY_map.jpg
>    Type: image/jpeg
>    Size: 106KB
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/2JqOuJtwb695J8MFK7I4nA
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

From: Glen Barnes Date: Aug 31 13:00 NZST Short link

Hi Brent,

Thanks for bringing up a concrete example, it is always better to have
an example to test against rather than theoretical issues. I suggest
you post this as a comment on the SSC blog around the NZGOAL posts as
what you mentioned is important. As another practical example you may
want to look at Zoodle where we aggregate property and community data:

http://www.zoodle.co.nz/12/7300060000

We simply do the attribution on a separate page:

http://www.zoodle.co.nz/cms/where

If someone from SSC wants to chime in about their thoughts on
attribution that would be great. The page could get quite messy if we
had to have cc logo's posted all over a page!

Glen

On 31/08/2009, at 12:40 PM, <email obscured> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> Firstly, apologies for the attachment & length of the post, but I
> think it is important to get this issue clearly described & perhaps
> actively discussed
>
> Secondly I also admit I have not followed this as well as I should
> have... only 24 hours in a day....
>
>
> Note that if I release the contents of this message under CC3 with
> attribution, anyone including parts of it when responding MUST
> include an appropriate acknowlegement, comprising whatever I happen
> to require... However I refrain from that & you can all do whatever
> you want with it :-)
>
> As Glen says, NZGOAL is indeed looking to standardise on CC3, see:
> http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/news_and_events/news/nzgoal_released
>
> using the Share Alike licence:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nz/
>
>
>
> There are similar efforts in West Island, see:
>
http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/Building_an_Australasian_Commons_book.pdf
>
> Lets look at the scenario where data is available, & someone wants
> to put up an interactive website allowing users to create maps by
> selecting data from a wide range of sources.
>
>
> I am assuming here that organisations do NOT waive their
> atribution rights under this licence... under the clause:
> "Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified
> by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that
> they endorse you or your use of the work)."
>
> This clause permits the imposition of significant restrictions
> particularly regarding on-line use of such data.
>
> This is not a new issue with CC licences for geodata. And given that
> a map is essentially a data mashup, non-spatial data which is
> derived from several sources, to generate a composite analysis or
> derived (secondary) datasets, again, which parts are attributed to
> who, & how is the attribution described within the resulting dataset?
>
> When data is supplied via OGC standard web services such as WMS or
> WFS which allow a client app to request & display data, attribution
> is difficult or impossible. A single on screen map can potentially
> have data from NASA, Google, LINZ, MFE, plus others seamlessly
> included, transparently to the user or end client.
>
> How is attribution managed in such cases?
> Is the website provider or the end user who created the end product
> liable if an output is incorrectly attributed?
> Which parts of an image are attributed to which source dataset?
>
> With OSM, attribution has been a stumbling block for the use of LINZ
> roading data. CC3 does not necessarily resolve this.
>
>
> For a real example see the attached image from a website (you don't
> have access to it yet - but I'm working on that :-).
>
> It is a simple OpenLayers map, where the user can select from a list
> of layers to add to the map. Simple, effective and a pretty common
> example of such things these days.... Let's assume each layer comes
> from a different organisation, all of which use a CC licence
> requiring attribution.
>
> De I then have to implement a popup for every layer describing its
> attribution? And once someone downloads the map & uses it in a
> report or presentation, or their own website, how can they maintain
> the attribution, or perhaps identify which pixels came from which
> source?
>
> So, from a spatial data or data mashup perspective, attribution is
> still a problem, and CC3 does not recognise or deal with this well,
> if at all, so is not an ideal solution.
>
> As far as I'm concerned attribution for a Govt Dept is all about
> branding, and their job should be to make the stuff available & not
> require branding before anyone can use it. (Note that a waiver/
> disclamer of liability is NOT an attribution)
>
> I suggest the CC3 licences for NZ should include a non-attribution
> version (they all include attribution AFAIK at present), or at the
> very least there should be a firm Goverment policy against requiring
> attribution or a standard minimal attribution which supports this
> sort of use of the data.
>
>
> CC3 is a big step forward in licencing Govt data to make them
> available & reuseable, but not effectively in a Web 2.0 environment,
> and while I applaud the efforts of those who have got us this far, I
> think there is still some way to go.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>  Brent Wood
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/31/09, Tim McNamara <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> From: Tim McNamara <email obscured>>
>> Subject: [ninjas] CC vs GPL/BSD licence for geodata?
>> To: <email obscured>
>> Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 10:34 AM
>> 2009/8/31 <email obscured>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree we have work (lots) to do here, but we should
>> be working locally
>>> but keeping an eye on the rest of the world as well.
>> Initiatives like OSM &
>>> OAM are best served, not by every country going
>> through the exercise of
>>> coming up with a licence, each slightly different, but
>> by the equivalent of
>>> the FSF & GPL providing a common, international
>> standard that we all can
>>> use.
>>>
>>
>> Just to confirm, is GPL (or code orientated) licencing best
>> for geodata? My
>> lay-person's perspective sees mapping information more akin
>> to something
>> visual that might sit better with a CC licence.
>>
>> timClicks
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/7t3jfG29FgxuzX2kb6wUQb
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
> The Open Government Ninjas now contains the following file
>
>    https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/img/904714-2009-08-31T004034Z
>    Name: IPY_map.jpg
>    Type: image/jpeg
>    Size: 106KB
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/2JqOuJtwb695J8MFK7I4nA
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org

From: Keitha Booth Date: Aug 31 13:30 NZST Short link

Re software, take a look at Paragraph 8 in the draft NZGOAL. It says:

"While NZGOAL does apply to datasets, it does not apply to software which, for
example, an agency owns and may wish to release on open source terms. In such
circumstances open source software licences are more appropriate than the
NZGOAL licences".

And have a look at the description of the Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 New
Zealand (BY-SA) on page 21 of the draft NZGOAL, which says:

"This licence lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for
commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations
under the identical terms. This licence is often compared to open source
software licences. All new works based on yours will carry the same licence; so
any derivatives will also allow commercial use."

Cheers

Keitha



--
Keitha Booth
Senior Advisor, ICT
State Services Commission
DDI: +64 4 495 6731
Mob: 027 445 4616
Fax: +64 4 495 6669
<email obscured>
www.ssc.govt.nz | newzealand.govt.nz

New Zealand's State Services Commission: Leading the state sector to world
class performance

............................................................................................

Caution: If you have received this message in error please notify the sender
immediately and then delete this message along with any attachments. Please
treat the contents of this message as private and confidential.


-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured>
<email obscured>] On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Monday, 31 August 2009 12:29 p.m.
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [ninjas] CC vs GPL/BSD licence for geodata?

> Open geodata licensing is a direct parallel to open source licensing,
> complete with arguments about whether licenses should demand
> reciprocity (GPL-esque "you can have my data, but you must release
> your changes to it under the same license"), open vs free, and all
> that stuff that leads to flames rather than illumination.

I don't think Stallman et al see the need to apply the GPL to data or indeed
other copyrighted works.

I *like* the GPL for software because, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, "it's about
the user, stupid".

A nice side effect of its approach is that it also encourages contributions.
The Linus view of the GPL is that it is the *best* way he knows of to develop
good software - he's not really a user freedom kind of guy :-)

So take your pick, either way, GPL for software is a very good choice.

Taking a user rights focused view on data might lead to some interesting
developments on that licensing front but I doubt a pure GPL would apply.

Cheers
Don

--
---------------------------------------
Donald Christie - Director
Catalyst IT Limited
Level 6,150-154 Willis Street, PO Box 11-053 Wellington New Zealand
Tel:+64 4 4992267
Mob:+64 274 707814
http://catalyst.net.nz
----------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/2WIcNnMfzTIOCy2l7VxL95

To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
<email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe

Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net
http://onlinegroups.net

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

From: Jonathan Hunt Date: Aug 31 14:51 NZST Short link

On Mon, August 31, 2009 12:40 pm, <email obscured> wrote:
> As Glen says, NZGOAL is indeed looking to standardise on CC3, see:
> http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/news_and_events/news/nzgoal_released
>
> using the Share Alike licence:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nz/
>
> Lets look at the scenario where data is available, & someone wants to put
> up an interactive website allowing users to create maps by selecting data
> from a wide range of sources.
>
> This clause permits the imposition of significant restrictions
> particularly regarding on-line use of such data.
>
> This is not a new issue with CC licences for geodata. And given that a map
> is essentially a data mashup, non-spatial data which is derived from
> several sources, to generate a composite analysis or derived (secondary)
> datasets, again, which parts are attributed to who, & how is the
> attribution described within the resulting dataset?
>
> When data is supplied via OGC standard web services such as WMS or WFS
> which allow a client app to request & display data, attribution is
> difficult or impossible. A single on screen map can potentially have data
> from NASA, Google, LINZ, MFE, plus others seamlessly included,
> transparently to the user or end client.
>
> How is attribution managed in such cases?
> Is the website provider or the end user who created the end product liable
> if an output is incorrectly attributed?
> Which parts of an image are attributed to which source dataset?

These are worthy questions. I'm not totally convinced any of them are
showstoppers though.

> For a real example see the attached image from a website (you don't have
> access to it yet - but I'm working on that :-).
>
> It is a simple OpenLayers map, where the user can select from a list of
> layers to add to the map. Simple, effective and a pretty common example of
> such things these days.... Let's assume each layer comes from a different
> organisation, all of which use a CC licence requiring attribution.
>
> De I then have to implement a popup for every layer describing its
> attribution?

But that's not too hard is it? Attribution could come from a code in the
title of the layer, or on a separate page, or as a popup or tooltip.

> And once someone downloads the map & uses it in a report or
> presentation, or their own website, how can they maintain the attribution,
> or perhaps identify which pixels came from which source?

In the same way anybody should be or can be citing data from any source.
It might be a little onerous but one of the points of XML was for data to
be self-describing; that is the data itself can contain information about
provenance, attribution, licensing etc. in ways that other formats (e.g.
CSV cannot).

> So, from a spatial data or data mashup perspective, attribution is still a
> problem, and CC3 does not recognise or deal with this well, if at all, so
> is not an ideal solution.
>
> As far as I'm concerned attribution for a Govt Dept is all about branding,
> and their job should be to make the stuff available & not require branding
> before anyone can use it. (Note that a waiver/disclamer of liability is
> NOT an attribution)

It's not just about branding. It's very much about provenance. In the same
way that supply chain systems can tell me which cow(s) my milk came from,
I should be able to trace back from any end representation what the data
sources were, and what their data sources were and so on, back to the
source of the data.

If I can't do that then I have to regard the final result as at least
somewhat suspect, as I can't double check the processing or the figures,
no matter how pretty the mashup.

> I suggest the CC3 licences for NZ should include a non-attribution version
> (they all include attribution AFAIK at present), or at the very least
> there should be a firm Goverment policy against requiring attribution or a
> standard minimal attribution which supports this sort of use of the data.

I think there needs to be a debate about whether non-attribution would
ultimately lead to bigger issues.

Attribution is key IMHO to knowing the license(s) in play, who the
ultimate rights holder(s) are, how I can reuse the info. It allows me to
check the original source and know whether someone has misinterpreted the
data (perhaps deliberately).

I don't think attribution need be too burdensome; it's common practice in
publishing, especially academically. It's exactly the kind of things
computers (should be) good at. Let them do the work of tracking data
sources and allowing tracing of provenance.

Regards
Jonathan

--
http://huntdesign.co.nz

From: Brent Wood Date: Aug 31 15:33 NZST Short link

Hi Jonathan,

Sorry, but while I agree with your concerns about data provenance, I stongly
disagree that attribution under the CC3 solves these issues and your contention
that it is NOT primarily about branding.

CC3 does not mandate or provide for any form of provenance whatsoever.

If you look at the sorts of information CC3 was designed around, as suggested
by 99% or so of their case studies, it is NOT about data, provenance or data
quality issues. It is simply about ensuring anyone who uses a dataset credits
the supplier for it.

I reiterate, attribution is about branding. If provenance is the issue here,
then don't call it attribution.

A requirement for attribution is a condition of use put upon the user by the
supplier. Provenance is about supplying metadata with the data, and is about
informing the end user so they can make better informed use of the data.

As you have just raised this very valid point, I suggest that the NZGOAL
recommendation should mandate provenance & data quality metadata be made
available with every dataset released under the licence. Attribution remaining
an optional extra to be applied in a non-restrictive fashion :-)

Spotcha,

  Brent



--- On Mon, 8/31/09, <email obscured>
<email obscured>> wrote:

> From: <email obscured> <email obscured>>
> Subject: Re: [ninjas] CC vs GPL/BSD licence for geodata?
> To: <email obscured>
> Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 2:50 PM
> On Mon, August 31, 2009 12:40 pm, <email obscured>
> wrote:
> > As Glen says, NZGOAL is indeed looking to standardise
> on CC3, see:
> > http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/news_and_events/news/nzgoal_released
> >
> > using the Share Alike licence:
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nz/
> >
> > Lets look at the scenario where data is available,
> & someone wants to put
> > up an interactive website allowing users to create
> maps by selecting data
> > from a wide range of sources.
> >
> > This clause permits the imposition of significant
> restrictions
> > particularly regarding on-line use of such data.
> >
> > This is not a new issue with CC licences for geodata.
> And given that a map
> > is essentially a data mashup, non-spatial data which
> is derived from
> > several sources, to generate a composite analysis or
> derived (secondary)
> > datasets, again, which parts are attributed to who,
> & how is the
> > attribution described within the resulting dataset?
> >
> > When data is supplied via OGC standard web services
> such as WMS or WFS
> > which allow a client app to request & display
> data, attribution is
> > difficult or impossible. A single on screen map can
> potentially have data
> > from NASA, Google, LINZ, MFE, plus others seamlessly
> included,
> > transparently to the user or end client.
> >
> > How is attribution managed in such cases?
> > Is the website provider or the end user who created
> the end product liable
> > if an output is incorrectly attributed?
> > Which parts of an image are attributed to which source
> dataset?
>
> These are worthy questions. I'm not totally convinced any
> of them are
> showstoppers though.
>
> > For a real example see the attached image from a
> website (you don't have
> > access to it yet - but I'm working on that :-).
> >
> > It is a simple OpenLayers map, where the user can
> select from a list of
> > layers to add to the map. Simple, effective and a
> pretty common example of
> > such things these days.... Let's assume each layer
> comes from a different
> > organisation, all of which use a CC licence requiring
> attribution.
> >
> > De I then have to implement a popup for every layer
> describing its
> > attribution?
>
> But that's not too hard is it? Attribution could come from
> a code in the
> title of the layer, or on a separate page, or as a popup or
> tooltip.
>
> > And once someone downloads the map & uses it in a
> report or
> > presentation, or their own website, how can they
> maintain the attribution,
> > or perhaps identify which pixels came from which
> source?
>
> In the same way anybody should be or can be citing data
> from any source.
> It might be a little onerous but one of the points of XML
> was for data to
> be self-describing; that is the data itself can contain
> information about
> provenance, attribution, licensing etc. in ways that other
> formats (e.g.
> CSV cannot).
>
> > So, from a spatial data or data mashup perspective,
> attribution is still a
> > problem, and CC3 does not recognise or deal with this
> well, if at all, so
> > is not an ideal solution.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned attribution for a Govt Dept is
> all about branding,
> > and their job should be to make the stuff available
> & not require branding
> > before anyone can use it. (Note that a
> waiver/disclamer of liability is
> > NOT an attribution)
>
> It's not just about branding. It's very much about
> provenance. In the same
> way that supply chain systems can tell me which cow(s) my
> milk came from,
> I should be able to trace back from any end representation
> what the data
> sources were, and what their data sources were and so on,
> back to the
> source of the data.
>
> If I can't do that then I have to regard the final result
> as at least
> somewhat suspect, as I can't double check the processing or
> the figures,
> no matter how pretty the mashup.
>
> > I suggest the CC3 licences for NZ should include a
> non-attribution version
> > (they all include attribution AFAIK at present), or at
> the very least
> > there should be a firm Goverment policy against
> requiring attribution or a
> > standard minimal attribution which supports this sort
> of use of the data.
>
> I think there needs to be a debate about whether
> non-attribution would
> ultimately lead to bigger issues.
>
> Attribution is key IMHO to knowing the license(s) in play,
> who the
> ultimate rights holder(s) are, how I can reuse the info. It
> allows me to
> check the original source and know whether someone has
> misinterpreted the
> data (perhaps deliberately).
>
> I don't think attribution need be too burdensome; it's
> common practice in
> publishing, especially academically. It's exactly the kind
> of things
> computers (should be) good at. Let them do the work of
> tracking data
> sources and allowing tracing of provenance.
>
> Regards
> Jonathan
>
> --
> http://huntdesign.co.nz
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> https://groups.opengovt.org.nz/r/topic/2XEylvLH9rdgcMW2nJlQji
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

From: Gavin Treadgold Date: Aug 31 15:48 NZST Short link

I have to agree with Brent.

CC Attribution is only about legal ownership, branding, and granting
of rights to users of the data.

Provenance is mostly a metadata problem - where did the source come
from, what accuracy, what was it collected for, who maintains it, what
area does it cover, assumptions made, what it doesn't provide, contact
details for information. CC does not cover any of this.

Richard M - perhaps it's time you made an appearance to raise the
ANZLIC NZ Government Metadata Standard? This is surely what is
required to capture provenance to the level need for informed use of
geospatial data. I can't see CC being in any way appropriate to manage
the metadata required.

Cheers Gav

You cannot post because you are not logged in. If you are a member The Open Government Ninjas, login to post to this topic. Otherwise sign up, become a member of The Open Government Ninjas, and post to this topic.

Privacy Acceptable Use Terms of Service About OnlineGroups.Net Contact OnlineGroups.Net

Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net

Host your own online groups site with GroupServer