You are browsing the archive for WG Open Licensing.

US Doctor Data to be “Open Eventually”

- November 9, 2012 in Access to Information, Open Government Data, Open Science, Open/Closed, WG Open Licensing

Here’s an interesting project using slightly unorthodox means to get data out into the open: crowdfunding the purchase of US healthcare data for subsequent open release. The company behind the project is NotOnly Dev, a Health IT software incubator who describe themselves as a “not-only-for-profit” company. Earlier this year they released a Doctor Social Graph, which displays the connections between doctors, hospitals and other healthcare organizations in the US. The dataset used is billed as “THE data set that any academic, scientist, or health policy junkie could ever want to conduct almost any study.” They say:
Our goal is to empower the patient, make the system transparent and accountable, and release this data to the people who can use it to revitalize our health system.
They’d acquired the data for that project through a whole load of FOI requests which they gradually stitched together – but to take the project to the next level they wanted to buy the State Medical Board report data for every state in the US. This data usually includes information on the doctors medical school, information about board certification and information on disciplinary actions against the doctor. In combination with what they’ve already done through FOI requests, this data has massive potential. Yesterday the crowdfunding drive ended, and the project has raised well over its target of $15,000. So now they can get hold of the data, clean it up and release it back into the community openly. But not right away. The company have developed the idea of an “Open Source Eventually” license. The data, once purchased, will remain exclusive for another six months. Thus the incentive for funders is that they will have exclusive access rights during that period, before the data goes open (under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license). Here’s Fred Trotter talking about the idea: NotOnly Dev reckon the “Open Source Eventually” license is “the perfect compromise” for securing the funds necessary to get expensive data out into the public. What do you think?

Making a Real Commons: Creative Commons should Drop the Non-Commercial and No-Derivatives Licenses

- October 4, 2012 in Featured, Free Culture, Open Content, Open Data, Open Definition, Open Standards, Open/Closed, WG Open Licensing

Students for Free Culture recently published two excellent pieces about why Creative Commons should drop their Non-Commercial and No-Derivatives license variants: As the first post says:
Over the past several years, Creative Commons has increasingly recommended free culture licenses over non-free ones. Now that the drafting process for version 4.0 of their license set is in full gear, this is a “a once-in-a-decade-or-more opportunity” to deprecate the proprietary NonCommercial and NoDerivatives clauses. This is the best chance we have to dramatically shift the direction of Creative Commons to be fully aligned with the definition of free cultural works by preventing the inheritance of these proprietary clauses in CC 4.0′s final release.
After reiterating some of the most common criticisms and objections against the NC and ND restrictions (if you are not familiar with these then they are worth reading up on), the post continues:
Most importantly, though, is that both clauses do not actually contribute to a shared commons. They oppose it.
This is a crucial point and one that I and others at the Open Knowledge Foundation have made time and time again. Simply: the Creative Commons licenses do not make a commons. As I wrote on my personal blog last year:
Ironically, despite its name, Creative Commons, or more precisely its licenses, do not produce a commons. The CC licenses are not mutually compatible, for example, material with a CC Attribution-Sharealike (by-sa) license cannot be intermixed with material licensed with any of the CC NonCommercial licenses (e.g. Attribution-NonCommercial, Attribution-Sharealike-Noncommercial). Given that a) the majority of CC licenses in use are ‘non-commercial’ b) there is also large usage of ShareAlike (e.g. Wikipedia), this is an issue affects a large set of ‘Creative Commons’ material. Unfortunately, the presence of the word ‘Commons’ in CC’s name and the prominence of ‘remix’ in the advocacy around CC tends to make people think, falsely, that all CC licenses as in some way similar or substitutable.
The NC and ND licenses prevent CC licensed works forming a unified open digital commons that everyone is free to use, reuse and redistribute. Perhaps if Creative Commons were instead called ‘Creative Choice’ and it were clearer that only a subset of the licenses (namely CC0, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA) contribute to the development of a genuine, unified, interoperable commons then this would not be so problematic. But the the fact that CC appears to promote such a commons (which in fact it does not) ultimately has a detrimental effect on the growth and development of the open digital commons. As the Free Culture blog puts it:
Creative Commons could have moved towards being a highly-flexible modular licensing platform that enabled rightsholders to fine-tune the exact rights they wished to grant on their works, but there’s a reason that didn’t happen. We would be left with a plethora of incompatible puddles of culture. Copyright already gives rightsholdors all of the power. Creative Commons tries to offer a few simple options not merely to make the lives of rightsholders easier, but to do so towards the ends of creating a commons.
Whilst Free Culture are focused on “content” the situation is, if anything, more serious for data where combination and reuse is central and therefore interoperability (and the resulting open commons) are especially important. We therefore believe this is the time for Creative Commons to either retire the NC and ND license variants, or spin them off into a separate entity which does not purport to promote or advance a digital commons (e.g. ‘Creative Choice’). Please consider joining us and Students for a Free Culture in the call to Creative Commons to make the necessary changes:

Open Street Map has officially switched to ODbL – and celebrates with a picnic

- September 12, 2012 in Exemplars, External, Featured, Open Data, Open Data Commons, WG Open Licensing

Open Street Map is probably the best example of a successful, community driven open data project. The project was started by Steve Coast in 2004 in response to his frustration with the Ordnance Survey’s restrictive licensing conditions. Steve presented on some of his early ‘mapping parties’ – where a small handful of friends would walk or cycle around with GPS devices and then rendezvous in the pub for a drink – at some of the Open Knowledge Foundation’s first events in London. In the past 8 years it has grown from a project run by a handful of hobbyists on a shoestring to one of the world’s biggest open data projects, with hundreds of thousands of registered users and increasingly comprehensive coverage all over the world. In short, Open Street Map is the Wikipedia of the open data world – and countless projects strive to replicate its success. Hence we are delighted that – after a lengthy consultation process – today Open Street Map has officially switched to using the OKFN’s Open Data Commons ODbL license. Michael Collinson, who is on the License Working Group at the OpenStreetMap Foundation, reports:
It is my great pleasure to pass on to you that as of 07:00 UTC this morning, 12th September 2012, OpenStreetMap began publishing its geodata under Open Data Common’s ODbL 1.0. That is several terabytes of data created by a contributor community of over a three-quarters of a million and growing every day.
The Open Street Map blog reports that OSM community members will be celebrating with a picnic:
At long last we are at the end of the license change process. After four years of consultation, debate, revision, improvement, revision, debate, improvement, implementation, coding and mapping, mapping, mapping, it comes down to this final step. And this final step is an easy one, because we have all pitched in to do the hard work in advance. The last step is so easy, it will be a picnic.
If you use data from Open Street Map, you can read about how the switch will affect you here. A big well done to all involved for coming to the end of such a lengthy process – and we hope you enjoyed the sandwiches!

CC license version 4.0: Helping meet the needs of open data publishers and users

- August 15, 2012 in External, Legal, Open Data Commons, Open Standards, Open/Closed, WG Open Licensing

Over the last few months, Creative Commons has been working on the next version of its license suite, version 4.0. The goals of version 4.0 are wide-ranging, but the overall objective is clear: update the licenses so they are considerably more robust, yet easy to understand and use, for both existing communities and new types of users. A key community that version 4.0 aims to serve better are public sector agencies releasing data. Public sector information can be of great value, but the public needs to know what they can do with it. At the same time, public sector agencies need to be reassured that they can offer data in a way that gives them credit, maintains their reputation, and ensures some level of data integrity. Version 4.0 offers several updates in support of both open data publishers and users. A few of these are discussed below.

Sui generis database rights

One area of particular interest to European data publishers and users will be the shift in how CC licenses handle sui generis database rights. These rights are similar to copyright, but instead of granting particular exclusive rights to authors for creating an original work, database rights reward the author for the “sweat of the brow” in compiling a database. In 3.0, CC licenses do not require compliance with the license conditions where the use of a CC licensed database triggers only sui generis database rights but not copyright. At the same time, CC 3.0 does not grant permission to engage in activities protected by the database right. In 4.0, we propose to license sui generis database rights on par with copyright. Since sui generis database rights are similar to copyright (in 4.0 draft 2 it is called a “copyright-like” right), this will align with expectations of users. Here’s an example. Let’s use as a baseline a CC BY licensed database of public transport data published by the city of Berlin. In 3.0 (International), a user extracts some public transport data in the database in a way that doesn’t implicate copyright. For example, they might extract the names of underground stations and train times and plot them on a map. They don’t have to attribute the creator of the database required by the CC license because such an extraction of factual data would not implicate copyright. However, the user might still be liable for infringing the sui generis database rights under German law (enacted in-line with the EU database directive). And CC 3.0 doesn’t license those rights. The user has to figure it out for herself. In 4.0, the goal is to make it so that even if the user extracts data from the CC BY licensed public transport database in a way that doesn’t implicate copyright (but does implicate the sui generis database right), the CC license grants those permissions (and imposes restrictions) in the same way as would be required under normal CC licensing circumstances. So, for example, the user extracts the names of underground stations and train times to plot them on a map. Even though this action still doesn’t implicate copyright, it does trigger sui generis database rights. Under CC BY 4.0, the database rights are granted, and the user must provide attribution to the creator of the database. Of course, if this change is adopted in 4.0, the licensing of sui generis database rights will only be in effect in jurisdictions that recognize these rights. So, for those jurisdictions where sui generis database rights do not exist, nothing would change.

Strengthen reputation and integrity

Another change queued up for 4.0 is the strengthening of particular provisions so that the CC licenses can be more easily used by institutions such as public sector bodies releasing open data. For example, 4.0 communicates more prominently that licensees may not imply or assert that their use of the licensed work is connected to or endorsed by the licensor. In addition to this “no endorsement” clause, 4.0 makes it possible for public sector bodies to add additional notices, warranties, or disclaimers of liability. The 4.0 draft also makes it clear – without making it a specific condition of the license itself – that users of licensed works are responsible for complying with laws outside of copyright that may apply to the use of the work, for instance data protection laws and laws guarding against fraud or misrepresentation. These mechanisms are important for official government bodies and data publishers: such institutions are sometimes apprehensive about releasing data sets if they think that downstream users will remix the data in ways that appear to show that the institution has sponsored or endorsed the use.

Updated attribution

CC 4.0 also attempts to clarify and simplify the attribution requirements. Licensees must still identify the author, the URL to where the work can be accessed, the URL to the CC license, and retain notices of disclaimers. Draft 4.0 streamlines the attribution process in a few ways — for example, it removes the requirement to include the title of the work. However, in version 4.0 licensees can satisfy these requirements in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which the work is used. Flexibility is important considering the wide range of potential uses for CC licensed content, especially data. One way that this might play out is for a licensee to provide alongside the work a simple URL to a web page that contains the information required to meet the attribution terms. You can imagine how that would be useful to help address problems of attribution stacking — users of databases would not have to list every single contributor alongside their adaptation. Instead, they could point to a separate web page listing the contributors, which makes more sense in certain applications. With these updated attribution methods, it helps licensees to give credit to the authors in the manner they wish to be attributed. All these issues (and more) continue to be discussed in consultation with the Creative Commons community. If all goes well, CC 4.0 will be published before the new year. We welcome feedback on the license-discuss email list. Image: Construction Cranes by Evo, CC-BY 2.0

Announcing the Open Definition Licenses Service

- February 16, 2012 in Open Content, Open Data, Open Definition, Open Knowledge, Open Knowledge Definition, Open Standards, Our Work, WG Open Licensing

We’re pleased to announce a simple new service from the Open Knowledge Foundation as part of the Open Definition Project: the (Open) Licenses Service. open licensing The service is ultra simple in purpose and function. It provides:
  • Information on licenses for open data, open content, and open-source software in machine readable form (JSON)
  • A simple web API that allows you retrieve this information over the web — including using javascript in a browser via JSONP
In addition to the service there’s also:

What’s Included

There’s data on more than 100 open (and a few closed) licenses including all OSI-approved open source licenses and all Open Definition conformant open data and content licenses. Also included are a few closed licenses as well as ‘generics’ — licensed representing a category (useful where a user does not know the exact license but knows, for example, that the material only requires attribution). View all the licenses available » In addition various generic groups are provided that are useful when constructing license choice lists, including non-commercial options, generic Public Domain and more. Pre-packaged groups include: The source for all this material is a git licenses repo on github. Not only does it provide another way to get the data, but also means that if you spot an error, or have a suggestion for an improvement, you can file an issue on the Github repo or fork, patch and submit a pull request.

Why this Service?

The first reason is the most obvious: having a place to record license data in a machine readable way, especially for open licenses (i.e. for content and data those conforming to the Open Defnition and for Software the Open Source Definition). The second reason is to make it easier for other people to include license info into their own apps and services. Literally daily, new sites and services are being created that allow users to share or create content and data. But when they do that, if there’s any intention for that data to get used and reused by others it’s essential that the material get licensed — and preferably, openly licensed. By providing license data in a simple machine-usable, web friendly format we hope to make it easier for people to integrate license choosers — and good license defaults — into their sites. This will provide not only greater clarify, but also, more open content and data — remember, no license usually means defaulting to the most restrictive, all rights reserved, condition.

Free! Music! Contest – fewer choices, more freedom

- July 13, 2011 in Free Culture, Guest post, Legal, Open Standards, WG Open Licensing, WG Public Domain

The following guest post is by Christian Hufgard, chairman of Musikpiraten, and member of the OKF’s Working Group on the Public Domain. The Free! Music! Contest is a contest for bands and artists releasing their songs under a creative commons license. In its third year the focus is set on enabling remixes – and freeness. Unlike the last two times, this year only cc-by and cc-by-sa licenses are allowed to be used. Why did the organizers decided to reduce the choices? Most of the songs that won the last two years used nc- or nd-licenses, so it is pretty likely that the change will mean fewer participants. What is wrong with nc (non-commercial) and nd (no drivatives)? Users are allowed to distribute the music and, if a song is not nd-licensed, to create derivative works. But due to the nature of music, the derivatives are mainly fan-made videos. Creating a remix based on a fully mixed song is much more complex and reduces the possibilities. There are some great artists out there like Girl Talk that mash up songs, but this is not what “derivative work” means: these mashups are in most countries covered by fair use rules. On the other hand commercial websites can get in trouble for license violations if they promote nc music. To sum up: nc- and nd-license are free as in “free beer”. You are allowed to consume and share art, but that’s it. In this way, the contest was more a “Shareable Music Contest”. Not a very sexy name… One option could have been to ban nc- and nd-licenses. But this would not have solved the problem of creating derivative works. To solve this, an additional rule was introduced: A single track from every song has to be released through the creative commons remix portal This way the contest is truly a “Free! Music! Contest”. The art is not only shareable but also remixable and free for all uses – as long as the author and the license are mentioned. But artists releasing their work under creative commons are pretty afraid of freedom. They fear that others might profit from their work without getting something in return. To work around that fear, the registered song does not have to be licensed cc-by or cc-by-sa: the rule only applies if a song is chosen for publication on the CD, which is to say that it is one of the contest’s winners. Reducing the artists’ choice of the license, the contest achieves more freedom for everybody else.

Bulgarian translation of the Open Knowledge Definition (OKD)

- June 21, 2011 in OKF Projects, Open Definition, Open Knowledge, Open Knowledge Definition, WG Open Licensing

The following post is from Jonathan Gray, Community Coordinator at the Open Knowledge Foundation.
We are pleased to now have a Bulgarian translation of the Open Knowledge Definition thanks to Peio Popov. You can find this at: If you’d like to translate the Definition into another language, or if you’ve already done so, please get in touch on our discuss list, or on info at okfn dot org.

What “open data” means – and what it doesn’t

- December 10, 2010 in Guest post, OKF, OKF Projects, Open Data, Open Definition, Open Standards, Open/Closed, WG Open Licensing

The following post is from Melanie Chernoff, Public Policy Manager for Red Hat. It was originally published on
Last week, an article in the Wall Street Journal talked about the Open Data Partnership, which “will allow consumers to edit the interests, demographics and other profile information collected about them. It also will allow people to choose to not be tracked at all.” The article goes on to discuss data mining and privacy issues, which are hot topics in today’s digital world, where we all wonder just how much of our personal data is out there and how it’s being used. These are valid concerns being talked about in other, more appropriate fora. I, however, would like to address my personal pet peeve about the dilution of the term open data. The Open Knowledge Definition says it this way, “A piece of content or data is open if you are free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share-alike.” Generally, this means that the data should be released in a format that is free of royalties and other IP restrictions. The problem is that an increasing number of people are using the term open data to mean publicly available data. In the article, the CEO of the startup directing the Open Data Initiative says the goal is to “be more transparent and give consumers more control” of the data that is collected and shared. Providing a mechanism in which consumers can decide what information can be made available to advertisers is a laudable goal. However, this “open data” initiative focuses on what data is made available, when open data is really about how data is made available. This definitional shift is a problem, particularly for governments that are implementing data policies. Simply put, all open data is publicly available. But not all publicly available data is open. Open data does not mean that a government or other entity releases all of its data to the public. It would be unconscionable for the government to give out all of your private, personal data to anyone who asks for it. Rather, open data means that whatever data is released is done so in a specific way to allow the public to access it without having to pay fees or be unfairly restricted in its use. In a previous article, I wrote about how the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) opened up their transit data to software developers. Within 2 months, six new trip planning applications for bus and train riders had been built at no cost to the MBTA. That’s the power of open data. It was data produced by the government which was released to the public in an open format (GTFS) for free, under a license that allowed for use and redistribution. Why does this matter? If open data is misunderstood as releasing any and all data to the public, people will become opposed to the concept due to their concerns about privacy. What we, as policy advocates, want to encourage is that the data that governments do and should publish is done so in a way to ensure equal public access by all citizens. In other words, you shouldn’t have to buy a particular vendor’s product in order to be able to open, use, or repurpose the data. You, as a taxpayer, have already paid for the collection of the data. You shouldn’t have to pay an additional fee to open it. We’ve all seen, from the recent news about Wikileaks, that there are real privacy and/or security concerns with putting all the government’s data out there, but that is a separate issue and shouldn’t be confused with open data. Whether data should be made publicly available is where privacy concerns come into play. Once it has been determined that government data should be made public, then it should be done so in an open format. Am I being nitpicky about the term? Maybe. But we’ve seen from other tech policy battles that good definitions are crucial to framing the debate.

Richard Poynder interviews Jordan Hatcher

- October 19, 2010 in Interviews, Legal, OKF, Open Data, Open Data Commons, Open Definition, Open Government Data, Open Knowledge Definition, Public Domain, WG Open Licensing

Open Acccess journalist extraordinaire Richard Poynder recently interviewed the Open Knowledge Foundation’s Jordan Hatcher about data licensing, the public domain, and lots more. An excerpt is reproduced below. The full version is available on Richard’s website. Over the past twenty years or so we have seen a rising tide of alternative copyright licences emerge — for software, music and most types of content. These include the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) licence, the General Public Licence (GPL), and the range of licences devised by Creative Commons (CC). More recently a number of open licences and “dedications” have also been developed to assist people make data more freely available. The various new licences have given rise to terms like “copyleft” and “libre” licensing, and to a growing social and political movement whose ultimate end-point remains to be established. Why have these licences been developed? How do they differ from traditional copyright licences? And can we expect them to help or hinder reform of the traditional copyright system — which many now believe has got out of control? I discussed these and other questions in a recent email interview with Jordan Hatcher. A UK-based Texas lawyer specialising in IT and intellectual property law, Jordan Hatcher is co-founder of, a board member of the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF), and blogs under the name opencontentlawyer. clip_image002 Jordan Hatcher

Big question

RP: Can you begin by saying something about yourself and your experience in the IP/copyright field? JH: I’m a Texas lawyer living in the UK and focusing on IP and IT law. I concentrate on practical solutions and legal issues centred on the intersection of law and technology. While I like the entire field of IP, international IP and copyright are my most favourite areas. As to more formal qualifications, I have a BA in Radio/TV/Film, a JD in Law, and an LLM in Innovation, Technology and the Law. I’ve been on the team that helped bring Creative Commons licences to Scotland and have led, or been a team member on, a number of studies looking at open content licences and their use within universities and the cultural heritage sector. I was formerly a researcher at the University of Edinburgh in IP/IT, and for the past 2.5 years have been providing IP strategy and IP due diligence services with a leading IP strategy consultancy in London. I’m also the co-founder and principal legal drafter behind Open Data Commons, a project to provide legal tools for open data, and the Chair of the Advisory Council for the Open Definition. I sit on the board for the Open Knowledge Foundation. More detail than you can ask for is available on my web site here, and on my LinkedIn page here. RP: It might also help if you reminded us what role copyright is supposed to play in society, how that role has changed over time (assuming that you feel it has) and whether you think it plays the role that society assigned to it successfully today. JH: Wow that’s a big question and one that has changed quite a bit since the origin of copyright. As with most law, I take a utilitarian / legal realist view that the law is there to encourage a set of behaviours. Copyright law is often described as being created to encourage more production and dissemination of works, and like any law, its imperfect in its execution. I think what’s most interesting about copyright history is the technology side (without trying to sound like a technological determinist!). As new and potentially disruptive technologies have come along and changed the balance — from the printing press all the way to digital technology — the way we have reacted has been fairly consistent: some try to hang on to the old model as others eagerly adopt the new model. For those interested in learning more about copyright’s history, I highly recommend the work of Ronan Deazley, and suggest people look at the first sections in Patry on Copyright. They could also usefully read Patry’s Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. Additionally, there are many historical materials on copyright available at the homepage for a specific research project on the topic here.

Three tranches

RP: In the past twenty years or so we have seen a number of alternative approaches to licensing content develop — most notably through the General Public Licence and the set of licences developed by the Creative Commons. Why do you think these licences have emerged, and what are the implications of their emergence in your view? JH: I see free and open licence development as happening within three tranches, all related to a specific area of use. 1. FOSS for software. Alongside the GPL, there have been a number of licences developed since the birth of the movement (and continuing to today), all aimed at software. These licences work best for software and tend to fall over when applied to other areas. 2. Open licences and Public licences for content. These are aimed at content, such as video, images, music, and so on. Creative Commons is certainly the most popular, but definitely not the first. The birth of CC does however represent a watershed moment in thinking about open licensing for content. I distinguish open licences from public licences here, mostly because Creative Commons is so popular. Open has so many meanings to people (as do “free”) that it is critical to define from a legal perspective what is meant when one says “open”. The Open Knowledge Definition does this, and states that “open” means users have the right to use, reuse, and redistribute the content with very few restrictions — only attribution and share-alike are allowed restrictions, and commercial use must specifically be allowed. The Open Definition means that only two out of the main six CC licences are open content licences — CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. The other four involve the No Derivatives (ND) restriction (thus prohibiting reuse) or have Non Commercial (NC) restrictions. The other four are what I refer to as “public licences”; in other words they are licences provided for use by the general public. Of course CC’s public domain tools, such as CC0, all meet the Open Definition as well because they have no restrictions on use, reuse, and redistribution. I wrote about this in a bit more detail recently on my blog. 3. Open Data Licences. Databases are different from content and software — they are a little like both in what users want to do with them and how licensors want to protect them, but are different from software and content in both the legal rights that apply and how database creators want to use open data licences. As a result, there’s a need for specific open data licences, which is why we founded Open Data Commons. Today we have three tools available. It’s a new area of open licensing and we’re all still trying to work out all the questions and implications.

Open data

RP: As you say, data needs to be treated differently from other types of content, and for this reason a number of specific licences have been developed — including the Public Domain Dedication Licence (PDDL), the Public Doman Dedication Certificate (PDDC) and Creative Commons Zero. Can you explain how these licences approach the issue of licensing data in an open way? JH: The three you’ve mentioned are all aimed at placing work into the public domain. The public domain has a very specific meaning in a legal context: It means that there are no copyright or other IP rights over the work. This is the most open/free approach as the aim is to eliminate any restrictions from an IP perspective. There are some rights that can be hard to eliminate, and so of course patents may still be an issue depending on the context, (but perhaps that’s conversation for another time). In addition to these tools, we’ve created two additional specific tools for openly licensing databases — the ODbL and the ODC-Attribution licences. RP: Can you say something about these tools, and what they bring to the party? JH: All three are tools to help increase the public domain and make it more known and accessible. There’s some really exciting stuff going on with the public domain right now, including with PD calculators — tools to automatically determine whether a work is in the public domain. The great thing about work in the public domain is that it is completely legally interoperable, as it eliminates copyright restrictions. See the rest of the interview on Open and Shut Related posts:
  1. Interview with Jordan Hatcher on legal tools for open data
  2. Jordan Hatcher talk on Open Data Licensing at iSemantics
  3. Open Licenses vs Public Licenses

Richard Poynder interviews Jordan Hatcher

- October 19, 2010 in Interviews, Legal, OKF, Open Data, Open Data Commons, Open Definition, Open Government Data, Open Knowledge Definition, Public Domain, WG Open Licensing

Open Acccess journalist extraordinaire Richard Poynder recently interviewed the Open Knowledge Foundation’s Jordan Hatcher about data licensing, the public domain, and lots more. An excerpt is reproduced below. The full version is available on Richard’s website. Over the past