Hi Rufus (& others).
Thanks for the initial feedback. I was hoping this would spark some productive comments and feedback.
I understand that deprecating a licence that is in use would be an unusual step, but I deliberately proposed that to ensure we're thinking about all possible options. I would rather get some clarity around the role of the ODbL in the broader open data commons than force people in one direction or another.
I agree with your later comment that the community does need to raise issues and concerns. And also that there ought to be some support/steering around the ODbL licences. It's the lack of activity and apparent direction which prompted my email.
I'm not qualified to suggest whether there are legal reasons to update or review the licences, but I do note that there is a current EU consultation which does touch on data rights: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/public-consultation-building-european-data-economy.
Regarding the broader CC suite, I agree that its important to clarify which licences count as open and which don't. I've recently worked with the ODI on some guidance on this: http://theodi.org/guides/impacts-of-non-open-licenses. But I think offering people options is better than forcing a particular viewpoint. I would rather see people becoming more "open" and works not being shared at all.
Similarly though, I've seen concerns expressed about the ODbL, which I'm not sure I've seen addressed (but this might be down to my missing the relevant debates), e.g. some of the concerns raised here: http://sciencecommons.org/resources/readingroom/comments-on-odbl/
In the shorter term I'd suggest two useful steps that could happen around ODbL:
clarifying its compatibility with CC licences.
If it possible to switch between different licences, as we can with OGL and CC-BY, then this achieves several goals:
clarifies that the licences have the same intent and standing
- that users can freely mix together works using the different licences
provides a means for current users of either licence to switch if they choose.
clearly documenting where and how ODbL is a better choice than alternatives
For example, can you provide pointers to the produced work issue? How is this requirement not covered by the CC licences?
This clarity would be useful to help people make decisions and might also promote further convergence between the CC and ODC licences.
But, thinking broader about what would benefit the open data community more broadly, might it not be more productive to work directly with Creative Commons to ensure that any perceived shortcoming with their licences w.r.t data are addressed? The CC licences already seem actively supported, have recognition and are translated into multiple languages.
Do we need separate strands of activity around licensing in the commons?