1

Topic: NBN proposed response to ‘Licensing of data within GBIF’ consultation

The NBN Trust would like to open this response for comment.  Please could you inform us by 9am Friday 13th June if you:

1         Support in full with the NBN Trust’s position on this consultation as summarised below
2         Support the position below with minor changes (please let us know what changes you would recommend)
3         Disagree entirely with the draft submission below, and why.

Please send responses to r.stroud@nbn.org.uk

Background to current GBIF CC0 Consultation

There are currently five topics being discussed as part of a GBIF consultation.
•    Request for feedback on a proposal to require data publishers to waive rights when publishing data through the GBIF network (equivalent to Creative Commons CC0)
•    To establish a set of community-developed norms for publishing and using biodiversity data, including guidelines for citation and respecting restrictions on commercial use. 
•    Modify the GBIF publishing process to allow data publishers to flag datasets that they wish to restrict from commercial use (as defined in the norms).
•    Move this forward within six months following approval of this model
•    Develop a citation model built upon the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) system, whereby each dataset has a DOI, and all citations reference the datasets used through DOIs.

More details can be found on the GBIF website here http://www.gbif.org/newsroom/consultations
Deadline for completed responses to GBIF: 14 June 2014 

Q1. The approach outlined would significantly clarify licensing and aims to promote fair use and citation via a set of community norms. However, data publishers would no longer be in a position to claim to copyright over data. Do you support GBIF taking this position?

The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) supports GBIF’s direction of clarifying and simplifying data publishing licenses to encourage use of data. A robust system, that is well understood by data publishers and data users, based around some form of Creative Commons has many advantages. The NBN believes that a move to more openness would be beneficial for biodiversity in the UK (and globally) in terms of research, conservation and education.  Furthermore, a Creative Commons license is consistent with the INSPIRE Directive.

However, given the considerable efforts that many data collectors, curators and publishers have put into creating and maintaining data collections the NBN considers that there should be an obligation on data users to cite all sources. Therefore, a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) is a preferred solution allowing re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited.

With regard to commercial use of data, there are already many forms of commercial use of biodiversity data in the United Kingdom. However, the NBN’s Data Exchange principles state:

“Biodiversity data suppliers should try to arrange resourcing of information provision so that charges for not-for-profit uses are minimal and charges for commercial uses are realistic but do not prevent the use of biodiversity data. Biodiversity data users should expect to contribute to sustaining the provision of biodiversity data through contributing either in kind or financially to the collection, collation and management of biodiversity data, or at the point of use".

Making data freely available for commercial use may be seen as undermining the NBN data exchange principle.  The proposal to enable some datasets to be flagged as restricted from commercial use is seen by the NBN as critical.  Not all UK data suppliers will want to use this control but we feel that an open data model from which some suppliers can opt out will be more conducive to increasing data use than a model that restricts use of all data based on the wishes of the most conservative data publishers.

The ability to flag datasets as restricted from commercial use will enable those who do not need to comply with INSPIRE to opt out if they wish.

Finally, we fully support the proposal to establish a citation model built upon the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) system, and ask that this be in place before the CC0 license is introduced.

Q2. Do you believe that there are additional factors which should be considered at this time?
The NBN Trust would prefer a 12 month time scale for implementation to enable the NBN to align their inhouse Terms and Conditions accordingly to align more closely with those of GBIF and to provide time for in country consultation and development work.

Q3. Do you foresee any substantial risk arising from this approach, in particular regarding the willingness of data holders to continue publishing through GBIF?
The NBN believes that the proposed changes will be seen as a significant threat to some UK data providers. As a result some will almost certainly respond by requesting the removal of their data from GBIF. While there are enormous benefits in open data, some data providers have reasons for retaining copyright and control of data for the purpose of monetising and publishing. Some data providers may also lower the resolution of the data that they provide to GBIF.

Q4. Are you interested in contributing to collaborative documentation on this topic?
Yes, the NBN is keen to be involved in any ongoing work on licensing of data so that we ensure the NBN processes are aligned and supported by the UK’s national network of data providers.

Thank you for your input and support

NBN Trust

2

Re: NBN proposed response to ‘Licensing of data within GBIF’ consultation

Done - mail sent.

Steve J. McWilliam
www.rECOrd-LRC.co.uk
www.stevemcwilliam.co.uk/guitar/

3

Re: NBN proposed response to ‘Licensing of data within GBIF’ consultation

Thanks Steve.

Mandy

4

Re: NBN proposed response to ‘Licensing of data within GBIF’ consultation

Hi Mandy,

Could i just clarify (i've probably missed this elsewhere). Although GBIF is suggesting the alterations to its Licensing, am i right in assuming that the NBN will continue to provide data to GBIF at our public resolution (in our case Tetrad?).

Natural History & Biodiversity Data Enthusiast

5

Re: NBN proposed response to ‘Licensing of data within GBIF’ consultation

Mandy, I've sent off an email directly to Rachel.

Ben, the answer to your question is NO. Unless you are able or prepared to waive copyright via means of CC0. It would also require NBN to alter their terms because they are currently incompatible with CC0. Essentially, what GBIF are after is to simplify the use of biodiversity data by removing usage restrictions and bespoke T&Cs.

Here is an excellent description of the problem they are trying to solve:

http://peterdesmet.com/posts/illegal-bullfrogs.html
http://peterdesmet.com/posts/analyzing- … enses.html

I gathered further reading resources and some thinking here:

https://gist.github.com/charlesroper/d4 … 38669a6003

There is also a discussion on the ALERC forum:

http://forum.lrcs.org.uk/viewtopic.php?id=907

Charles Roper
Digital Development Manager | Field Studies Council
http://www.field-studies-council.org | https://twitter.com/charlesroper | https://twitter.com/fsc_digital

6

Re: NBN proposed response to ‘Licensing of data within GBIF’ consultation

I sent my response to Rachel we agreed it would be useful, in the interests of openness and to promote discussion, to post here.

---

I like the response and support the points raised. Some thoughts:

- The suggestion of CC BY is good, but why not have the option of several CC licenses; e.g., CC BY, CC BY-NC, CC0? Just the option of these three would cover most situations. How about CC BY-SA also?

- When there is a requirement to publish under no-commercial-use terms, then the BY-NC license seems appropriate[1]. If flagging of certain datasets for non-commercial use is critical, then what better flag than this?

- One of the arguments GBIF - or their advisors, at least - are making is that requiring attribution is impractical in many situations, leading to "attribution stacking". A counterpoint worth making is that CC 4.0 attributions "may be implemented in any reasonable manner"[2]. To me that seems a good compromise and certainly more reasonable than absolutely requiring CC0.

- In Q3 the answer gives the impression that retention of copyright and control is a choice based on the need or desire to monetise. I think it is important to emphasise that it is often (usually?) not a choice but a requirement, both moral and legal. We simply do not have permission or the right to waive copyright or even apply a license of our choice without consulting the original provider. To quote CC: "Keep in mind that you cannot waive rights to a work that you do not own unless you have permission from the owner"[3]. That's not to say data managers couldn't seek permission. I'd welcome an NBN/ALERC initiative to explore the feasibility of - and best practice for - seeking permission for CC licensing of historical and future data. It's something we in Sussex are certainly exploring and pursuing (gently, to begin with).

- A really pedantic nit-pick: CC0 isn't technically a license - it's a formal waiver, which is sort of the opposite of a license.

[1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
[2] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequen … license.3F
[3] https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/


Collaborative Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management

I came across two other important projects yesterday and today that are very relevant to this discussion[4][5]. The term "Collaborative Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management" I found at the latter. For me it better encapsulates the vision and scope of what "online recording" can or should be. Or, at least, it gives us a broader framework into which online recording can fit and be guided by.

[4] http://www.pro-ibiosphere.eu/
[5] http://plazi.org/?q=bouchout

I've been thinking about, following and studying the open data movement for about a year now, how it fits with our strategy here in Sussex and how it is a movement I personally believe in and can align with. It was the subject of the lead article in our annual biological recording review, Adastra[6], where six months ago I proposed a provisional way forward in regards to CC licensing. My thinking was completely independent of pro-iBiosphere or Bouchout Declaration and it is encouraging to find these ideas to be largely in harmony. It is further evidence - to me at least - we are converging on an important strategic focus for the coming years.

[6] http://sxbrc.org.uk/biodiversity/public … a_2013.pdf

Charles Roper
Digital Development Manager | Field Studies Council
http://www.field-studies-council.org | https://twitter.com/charlesroper | https://twitter.com/fsc_digital

7

Re: NBN proposed response to ‘Licensing of data within GBIF’ consultation

Very well said Charles - fully agree !!!!!!!!!!!

Steve J. McWilliam
www.rECOrd-LRC.co.uk
www.stevemcwilliam.co.uk/guitar/