1. Legal interoperability
making open (government) data
compatible with businesses and communities
Global Interoperability and Linked Data in Libraries
Aula Magna dell'Univeristà di Firenze
June 18-19, 2012
federico.morando@gmail.com
Nexa Center for Internet & Society, Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN ()
LAPSI - The European Thematic Network on Legal Aspects of PSI (http://www.lapsi-project.eu/)
these slides available under a CC0 license/waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

2. legal interoperability
possibility of (legally) mixing data coming from
different sources (e.g. government data, UGC,
corporate data)

3. agenda
1) © law → open data need “licenses”
2) (hence) legal interoperability (is an issue)
3) focus on various licenses
4) implications
1) (for license stewards)
2) for license users
5) conclusion

4. the legal background
“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved
(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &
including sui generis database right, etc.)

5. the legal background
“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved
(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &
including sui generis database right, etc.)
(without a clear statement → locked data or legal uncertainty)

6. the legal background
“copyright” default rule = all rights reserved
(“copyright” in a broad sense: ≈ droit d'auteur &
including sui generis database right, etc.)
(without a clear statement → locked data or legal uncertainty)
open data → open “license”
(including dedications, waivers or notices
e.g. CC0 or the PublicDomainMark)

7. so, to avoid prohibitive transaction costs,
we have to deal with “copyright” licenses

8. so, to avoid prohibitive transaction costs,
we have to deal with “copyright” licenses
a common problem without a general solution
→ many different licensing tools

9. (data) licensing landscape
● (FLOSS licenses used for data)
● Creative Commons Licenses
● standard general purpose CC licenses
– BY; (SA); [NC]; {ND}
– 3.0 EU licenses (waiving sui generis database right)
used by/
●
●
CC0 waiver (with fallback clauses → broad license)
Public Domain Mark (notice of PD status)
{ developed with
Europeana
● Open Data Commons Licenses
● for (open) data only
– PD dedication (with license fallback), BY or SA (first to be produced, targeting communities)
● National (open government) data licenses
● UK: OGL (BY +)
● FR: License Ouverte (BY +)
● IT: IODL (beta ver.: BY-SA-NC +; 1.0: BY-SA +; 2.0: BY +)
● ...

10. the “+”s: national licenses &
standard worries
● UK OGL, Italian Open Data License (IODL),
etc.
● ensure [or “take all reasonable steps so”] that you
do not use the Information in a way that suggests
any official status...
● ensure that you do not mislead others or
misrepresent the Information or its source...
● ensure that your use of the Information does not
breach the Data Protection Act...

11. License Ouverte &
privacy concerns
● the French LO adopts an interesting solution about
several “standard worries”
● section “About the Open Licence” at the end of the
document
● description of relevant “facts” (instead of clauses)
– Information which contains personal data is not considered to
be public sector information re-usable under the terms of
French Law – except where persons on which data is collected
have agreed to its reuse, where this data has been rendered
anonymous by the public sector bodies, or where a legal or
statutory provision permits its re-use (in these three cases, re-
use is subject to compliance with French privacy protection
legislation).

12. Non-Commercial reminder
● (luckily) this is an “endangered clause” in the PSI domain
● yet, the NC debate characterizes the first phases of
most “re-use friendly” initiatives
● de facto, the NC licenses are only compatible with other
NC licenses
● always remind (to your institution) some basic things
● Non-Commercial → no (standard) business models
● NC also → no (open) communities
– impossible to re-use for non-profit groups including
Wikimedia/Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, etc.
● oversimplifying: Non-Commercial → NO Wikipedia (DBpedia)

13. various approaches
to interoperability
● OGL FAQs
● information can be mixed and re-purposed easily with
other licence models requiring attribution in that the
terms of the Open Government Licence should
not present any barriers
● LO
● interoperability clause in the main text
● IODL
● 1.0 (SA): interoperability clause in the main text
● 2.0 (BY): OGL-like solution (FAQs)

14. a view on
license interoperability complexity
● preliminary attempt
● given the original license
– on the lines
● can I use a given standard license for a “derivative” work/DB?
– on the columns

15. zooming on
license interoperability complexity

16. universal donors

17. universal donors

18. universal donors
● Creative Commons Zero (CC0)
● Public Domain Dedication or License (PDDL)
● tagging of public domain content with the PDMark

19. the problem
● you may have different interpretations
● several issues have been oversimplified
– including the licensed rights!
● copyright vs. sui generis
● database vs. content (“data”)

20. the problem
● you may have different interpretations
● several issues have been oversimplified
– including the licensed rights!
● copyright vs. sui generis
● database vs. content (“data”)
this is the best proof of existence of a
serious problem!

21. it's not just a matter of theoretical compatibility
it doesn't matter if some legal scholars could
argue that mixing data may be possible
re-users need to clearly understand
what they can (or cannot) do

22. some implications
for license stewards
● beware of license vanity
● work to merge share-alike licenses (or make them compatible)
● don't create new ones!
● you may facilitate (©)interoperability if you address non-©
worries with other tools
● standard © licenses do not cover non-© aspects (e.g. privacy)
– notices satisfying any taste (e.g. privacy notices)
– soft law could substitute some stupid disclaimers
● if you advise a (public sector) information holder
● don't produce a custom license, but a custom licensing framework
– using standard © license (e.g. New Zealand: NZGOAL framework)

23. some implications
for license users
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability
● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ decent interoperability

24. some implications
for license users
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability
● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ decent interoperability
● Share-Alike licenses

25. some implications
for license users
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability
● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ decent interoperability
● Share-Alike licenses
problems uncertainty

26. some implications
for license users
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability
● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ decent interoperability
● Share-Alike licenses
problems uncertainty
lawyers

27. some implications
for license users
● Public Domain (CC0) → actual interoperability
● CC BY → reasonable attribution
→ decent interoperability
● Share-Alike licenses
problems uncertainty
;-) lawyers

28. conclusion (hope)
● it's a learning process
● e.g. FLOSS
– ¼ Century to achive (decent) interoperability
– Mike Linksvayer (CC):
● 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!
● in the mid/long run
● legal interoperability could be achieved thorough the evolution of legal
frameworks in order to harmonize the landscape of Government Data
● in the short term
● you have to adopt a copyright “license”
● Creative Commons Zero (CC0) or similar “public domain” tools are the
easiest and more complete “solution” to license interoperability