[Geowanking] Fwd: [OGC Press Release] Mash-up event to unite leading minds from the geographic information industry

Mon Oct 16 08:43:15 PDT 2006

To answer Chris's specific question:  From my perspective, both 501(c) 
(3) status where there is no reciprocation, and share-alike in  
commercial situations sound fine.

It's important to point out that Google's service license is not  
licensing data.  But we are talking about data here.  I predict there  
will be little "BSD style" licensing of geographic data, because  
gathering it is so expensive.  (And you haven't mentioned BSD  
licenses, which kind of makes my point.)

It seems to me that this folds into the DRM discussion.  Before you  
can have a meaningful DRM technology discussion (if that even makes  
sense for geographic data...I think it might not), you have to know  
how you want to license the data.  Sort of like agile programming:   
What data are we talking about, and what license restrictions are we  
talking about?  Let's construct the minimum policy enforcement to  
handle that, and if it requires DRM so be it, but if not, why do it?

One difference between geographic data and music, let's say, is that  
data distribution points for geography are far fewer than for music,  
and so traditional enforcement mechanisms (manual detection and  
litigation) might be perfectly suitable for geo data.

Dan R. Greening, Ph.D.,  CEO BigTribe Corporation,  http:// 
dan.greening.name/contact.htm

On Oct 15, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Chris Holmes wrote:

>
>> Having a framework where we can just refer to a CC-Geo-NP  
>> (Creative Commons Geography Non-Profit Use) license or some such  
>> thing would be a great benefit.  I'm sure that's true for lots of  
>> folks.
>
> What exactly do you mean by 'non profit' use?  Only registered  
> 501c3 non-profits can use it?  Or you mean more like the normal  
> Creative Commons Non-commercial: 'you may not use this work for  
> commercial purposes'?  Or more like Google's terms: 'The Service  
> may be used only for services that are generally accessible to  
> consumers without charge.'?
>
> The week before last I attended a 'science commons' conference  
> (see: http://www.spatial.maine.edu/icfs/), with the goal of trying  
> to get some answers about using creative commons licenses for  
> geodata, and perhaps eventually something like a 'geo-commons'  
> license.  I did get some decent answers, which hopefully will be  
> worked in to their more generic open data FAQ - in short they do  
> believe is possible to use CC licenses for geodata.  But I think  
> we'll have to keep pushing to get more specific licenses for  
> geodata, and indeed good marketing for them, which I think is very  
> important.
>
> I'll try to write up more of what I found out soon, but I'd love to  
> hear more on what people might want out of creative commons  
> licenses (either actual or in the same style) for geodata.  My  
> thinking right now is both an LGPL and a GPL style 'share  
> alike' (both require contributions back, one can be combined with  
> other layers, other says all layers must be in a similar license),  
> an attribution one, and I guess a non-commercial one (though that's  
> a huge can of worms that I can't get my head around - how exactly  
> do you define 'non-commercial').  Thoughts?  (I'll post a more  
> detailed write up on the OSGeo geodata list and wiki: https:// 
> geodata.osgeo.org/)
>
> Chris
>
>
>> Dan R. Greening, Ph.D.,  CEO BigTribe Corporation,  http:// 
>> dan.greening.name/contact.htm
>> On Oct 13, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Josh at oklieb wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Andrew Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Josh at oklieb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They also seem to be taking seriously and working at using OGC
>>>>> services to provide specific free or low-cost usage of their  
>>>>> data, as
>>>>> distinct from "free for any use" delivery of entire datasets.  
>>>>> This is
>>>>> a useful and appropriate connection with the concept of  
>>>>> mashups. By
>>>>> the way, almost all data made accessible through OGC services and
>>>>> encodings has some rights reserved (e.g. attribution), however  
>>>>> they
>>>>> are being regarded as "free and open".
>>>>
>>>> This is assumed for all data sources?
>>>
>>> Not assumed, but there are almost always conditions of use. US  
>>> and Canada are very concerned about the conditions of use even  
>>> when they distribute data without charge. Liability and all that.  
>>> Expressing those conditions has just been rather haphazard and  
>>> not supported explicitly by the OGC Web Services framework up  
>>> until now (outside of a metadata tag in the WMS capabilities).
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My disclaimer: I am working with OS and with OGC on what is called
>>>>> "GeoDRM" but which is actually a wide concept of rights  
>>>>> management in
>>>>> the use and distribution of geodata, including such things as
>>>>> Creative Commons and GPL.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So this means there will be a way to specify the actual license  
>>>> under
>>>> which data is published and aggregated?
>>>
>>> The idea is to have a common framework for both referencing and  
>>> agreeing to a machine-readable license expression. Stamping a  
>>> website with a Creative Commons logo is one approach, but not  
>>> always the most appropriate, particularly with the variety of  
>>> ways in which one can process and represent geodata.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Geowanking mailing list
>>>> Geowanking at lists.burri.to <mailto:Geowanking at lists.burri.to>
>>>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Geowanking mailing list
>>> Geowanking at lists.burri.to <mailto:Geowanking at lists.burri.to>
>>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>> !DSPAM:1003,452fc659138471665516417!
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> ---
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geowanking mailing list
>> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>> !DSPAM:1003,452fc659138471665516417!
>
> -- 
> Chris Holmes
> The Open Planning Project
> http://topp.openplans.org
> <cholmes.vcf>
> _______________________________________________
> Geowanking mailing list
> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://geowanking.org/pipermail/geowanking_geowanking.org/attachments/20061016/68afcc65/attachment-0003.html>