I’m a researcher with Open Knowledge International and currently working with @Mor on the Global Open Data Index.
We were discussing the role of open licensing in our current measurements of openness and the potential bias towards jurisdictions with copyright law. The Open Definition 2.1 states that “work must be in the public domain or provided under an open license” and another article signed by Joshua Tauberer et al. states that “open licensing presumes copyright protection”.
- I hope this question is not obvious, but am I right, that the Open Definition 2.1 also defines government data as open data if they are not openly licensed but in public domain, i.e. “licence-free” (given that the other criteria of the Open Definition are met)?
- Would you agree that applying an open licence (except from CC0) could also decrease the openness of government data that are in the public domain by default (through the application of attribution, share-alike and other conditions of use)? Would you agree that there is a potential conflict between public domain status and the application of open licences (and do you know of cases where this happened)?
- In order to acknowledge the existence of non-licensed open government data in the public domain, would you agree that global measurements like the Global Open Data Index should measure whether government data are in the public domain by default and whether they are openly licensed?
Since I’m not a legal expert I would be very happy if you could help me clarifying these points.
All the best,