1. Towards License Interoperability:
Patterns of Sustainable Sharing
Policy
Share-PSI.eu Workshop: Removing the
roadblocks to a pan European market
for Public Sector Information re-use
Mike Linksvayer
2011-05-11 / Brussels
1

2. Without
interoperability
re-use is a
struggle
#!€?
flickr.com/photos/dcoetzee/3566415826/ · CC0
2

3. flickr.com/photos/dcoetzee/3566410256/ · CC0
With interoperability re-use is open
to the curious citizen.
3

4. FLOSS: 25+ years toward
interoperability
4

5. FLOSS: discovery concerning what
works for field
Early confusion on libre vs gratis
Early non-commercial licenses,
including first release of Linux
kernel
Now, people who put first freedom
(e.g., Stallman), development (e.g.,
Torvalds), and profit (corporations)
~agree on what free/open means:
Amazing! 5

6. FLOSS: making legal interoperability
reality
Early proliferation of licenses,
many vanity, much incompatibility
GPL long dominant license; most
licenses unused; other important
licenses GPL-compatible after much
effort (e.g., Apache2, forthcoming
MPL2)
6

7. FLOSS: deepening expertise,
community, public sector involvement
Well of legal and policy knowledge
concerning FLOSS
FSF in unique position as GPL
steward, but small part of ecosystem
Activists, analysts, communities,
corporations, developers,
governments, NGOs, platforms
7

8. FLOSS: ongoing
Patents, network services, project
governance, contributor agreements,
public license compliance,
regulatory, procurement, funder
policy, software mixing with non-
software, etc.
Many challenges, but significant
capacity to meet them: sustainable
sharing
8

9. Open content: 10+ years toward
interoperability
9

10. Open content: what works for field?
Similar to FLOSS (see Definition of Free
Cultural Works, Open Knowledge Definition)
for building a commons, though not
everyone realizes this yet.
Legalizing non-commercial only, verbatim
sharing still socially valuable relative to
default (attacks on Internet largely concern
this), but distinct from open.
10

11. Open content: license deproliferation
Early (1998-2001) licenses niche-centric,
most prominently Open Content/Publication
Licenses, FSF Free Documentation License,
EFF Open Audio License, but many others
OCL/OPL steward recommended using CC
licenses; EFF created one-way compatibility
from OAL to BY-SA; FSF created narrow one-
way compatibility from FDL to BY-SA to
allow Wikipedia to migrate
Surprising and good lack of vanity licenses 11

12. Open content / Open data / PSI
Adoption taking off in past couple years
Various Creative Commons licenses, CC0
PDDL, ODC-BY, ODbL
OGL and similar semi-custom instruments
Ad hoc licensing or no licensing
12

13. 4 sources of interoperability
challenges
Incompatible open licenses (primarily
copyleft)
Proliferation of semi-custom terms
Use of non-open public licenses (e.g.,
NonCommercial, NoDerivatives)
No attempt to be open
13

14. The UK was able to draw on the work of public sector
colleagues in Australia and New Zealand. Both countries
have launched policies designed to open up government and
make PSI more readily available for re-use. They did this
through the adoption of Creative Commons model licences.
The UK, however, decided to develop a new licence – the
The main reason for
Open Government Licence.
this was that none of the existing
Creative Commons licences extended
to the licensing of works protected
by the database right.
Jim Wretham
Share-PSI workshop position paper
14

15. [E]nabling the true potential of public sector information
(PSI) requires a cross-border and cross-sectoral approach
to licensing. Globally successful licensing suites such as
(even
Creative Commons show that this is possible
though the CC-licences might not
always be appropriate for licensing
PSI due to the different national
interpretations of the originality
requirements under copyright
regulation and the existence of
specific rights such as the EU sui
generis database right).
Dr. Katleen Janssen
Share-PSI workshop position paper 15

16. Sui Generis database rights
inadequately addressed in CC
licenses
Also the reason for creation of ODbL
(incompatible copyleft)
To be fixed in version 4.0 of CC
licenses
16

17. Incompatible copyleft licenses
difficult to resolve
Necessary: databases and content not
separate magisteria; even if they
were, much use of CC BY-SA for
databases
CC and OKFn committed to resolution
FLOSS and open content experience
gives hope, suggests solutions
Do not want this to be a legacy
issue holding back field for years! 17

18. Strong expressions of demand from
public sector for interoperability
Italian Open Data License explicitly
compatible with CC BY-SA and ODbL
OGL “aligned to be interoperable”
with CC BY and ODC-BY
18

19. Addressing other concerns driving
creation of new PSI licenses
Preference for licensing frameworks
over new licenses
Explain use of standard open
licenses in PSI context
Keep incompatible terms out of
license, maintaining clear
interoperability
19

20. 20

21. (copyleft) wikipedia
21

22. Key initiatives (CC, OKFn, and you)
Work on interoperability
Articulate and promote consensus
licensing principles for PSI: only
open terms (per OKD)
Reduce other proliferation, e.g.,
with licensing frameworks
Collaborate on adoption, capacity
building
22

23. Precision concerning
“interoperability”
Directional compatibility (one-way
or bilateral)
License stewards not only actors:
many interoperability gains achieved
by communities/projects/institutions
choosing or migrating wisely
23

24. Key upcoming milestones
Digital Agenda (16-17 June,
Brussels)
OKCon (30 June-1 July, Berlin)
CC Global meeting (16-18 September,
Warsaw)
24

25. Legal interoperability challenges
not all bad
Contributes to deepening of
knowledge concerning open licensing,
crucial for long term adoption and
problem avoidance.
Still, market confusion bad.
Interoperable open licenses should
be given, in the background.
25

26. links: convey yourself to
http://share-psi.eu/papers/CreativeCommons.pdf
(Patterns of Sustainable Sharing
Policy, workshop position paper)
http://creativecommons.org
(Creative Commons NGO)
26