Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Data Sets? Linux Foundation Introduces 'Community Data License Agreements' (linuxinsider.com)
"In open source philosophy, you share source code. Why not share data?" writes Slashdot reader princelobga. Linux Insider reports on the Linux Foundation's new Community Data License Agreement, "a new framework for sharing large sets of data required for research, collaborative learning and other purposes."
CDLAs will allow both individuals and groups to share data sets in the same way they share open source software code, the foundation said. "As systems require data to learn and evolve, no one organization can build, maintain and source all data required," noted Mike Dolan, VP of strategic programs at The Linux Foundation. "Data communities are forming around artificial intelligence and machine learning use cases, autonomous systems, and connected civil infrastructure," he told LinuxInsider. "The CDLA license agreements enable sharing data openly, embodying best practices learned over decades of sharing source code."
A principal analyst at Pund-IT told the site that the new data license "reflects the growing importance of information as a resource for big data analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence."
A principal analyst at Pund-IT told the site that the new data license "reflects the growing importance of information as a resource for big data analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence."
systemd is open sores
Call Craig @ 425-481-0289.
Don't put binary data to the source repository.
Can this be data mined for target advertising or perhaps some type of political value add? I would like to explore this further.
How/Why is this different from the Open Data license?
by DOB, ZIP, and gender, so we need to be really careful with any "open" data.
Open-this, Open-that, open disruption, open game-changer, open paradigm shift. It's time to redraw the buzzword bingo card.
The AOL data releases proved most attempts to anonymize data don't work. My old boss was able to figure-out my old AOL account and find the posts I made as a teenager. I got fired for that. I live in Seattle, and this is a very anti-free speech place.
That's absolutely right, in the US, at least, there is no copyright on a collection of facts. I don't know if any other countries might allow it on a specific compilation of data. Obviously copyright on a single, discreet fact wouldn't make any sense.
In the US, a copyright could apply to a creative arrangement and formatting of facts. (Much as there is no copyright on musical notes, but there can be on a specific, creative arrangement of specific notes, a song).
So under copyright, you can take someone's dataset and distribute it without asking, but in some cases you can't just redistribute their data FILE. You'd need to produce your own arrangement and formatting of the data, if their work is creative.
There are, however, potentially other considerations other than copyright - trade secrets, unfair competition, etc. Granting permission under the license would estop the producer from filing suit under these other theories, providing users (and those who redistribute) some assurance that they can do so safely.
It also explicitly disclaims any right under copyright, that *probably* doesn't apply anyway in *most* cases. "We definitely have explicit written permission" is better than "we probably don't need permission".
And who will validate the accuracy of the data? Or does this open the door for more "fake" data?
I had a similar idea, but definitely totally different and pure genius. You see, I realized that like source code, we could be sharing the "source code" of food preparations. In order to accomplish this magnificent feat, I invented something called the OSFPRL (Open Sharing of Food Preparation Recipe License). Now, because of this amazing invention, people can share these 'recipes'.
Don't think about stealing my idea though, I've patented it. It's all mine!
Yeah, that totally happened.
I see several comments already implying that open licenses specifically for data are unnecessary because we already have free open source licenses for code, but they're not the same.
Most of our open source licenses use copyright law as their foundations. Different legal systems treat the idea of copyrighting facts somewhat differently, but in the US, facts aren't copyrightable. That means that trying to apply a FOSS license to data can be fraught--how can the copyright-based license apply if data aren't copyrightable?.
In the EU, facts aren't copyrightable, but "databases" are--where a "database" is a collection of data that has had value added by efforts to organize the data, for example (they call this "sui generis").
How do you deal with jurisdictional incompatibilities? Good open data licenses spell out the solutions to these conflicts. I see nothing about them in the CDLA. That alone would make me extremely hesitant to try to use it on any data product I publish.
The issue with data is it can likely originate from a much larger number of sources than source code. In development you might have a few people contributing code to a project and all agree to the open source licensing but with data it might be from hundreds of sources. You would need to either have a means of getting approval from everyone who contributed or provide a means of people opting out of providing their data to your set before you could open it up.
They already provides any information you want freely. ;)
Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
Never heard of open street maps?