Re: Open Data liability issues

As a data point, it's worth noting that these kind of limitations of
liability and limited warranty are pretty standard for open source
licences and also the broader set of creative commons licences.
They're not just limited to open data licences. Many businesses are
happily using open source software despite limitations of
liability/warranty. I suspect the same will be true for open data:
businesses will need to make a risk assessment around the assets they
reuse, of whatever form.

There are ways to address concerns around quality and sustainability
of open data, with the goal of minimising risk, other than requiring a
warranty.

For example, opting to pay for enhanced services, e.g. improve data
feeds, etc. AIUI, the BBC pay for MusicBrainz data feeds, even though
the core data is open.

There's an interesting example here of Telenav directly investing in
improving Open Street Map to make it fitter for their purposes, but
still reaping benefits from the project:

http://stevecoast.com/2014/05/19/why-openstreetmap-is-now-navigation-ready-for-people-like-you/

Cheers,

L.


On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Lee, Deirdre <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> As a follow-up on this thread, I was at Joel Gurin’s talk in the ODI last
> Friday on ‘The value of open data to business’ [1] I asked him his views on
> whether the ‘as is’ clause of Open Licenses, i.e. not accepting liability is
> an obstacle for businesses reusing Open Data. He seemed a little surprised
> by the question, but acknowledged it was an interesting issue. Joel gave the
> example of Medicare recently releasing data about how much doctors are paid,
> which could lead to potential liability issues, however this isn’t an
> example of third-party reuse. He said he’d be interested in our findings.
>
>
>
> As Joel works with a lot of Open Data companies with the Open Data 500
> project, and liability doesn’t seem to have registered as an issue for him
> signalled to me:
>
> a)      We’re ahead of the game thinking about such issues J, or
>
> b)      Liability isn’t an issue for actual business re-users of Open Data!
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Deirdre
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://soundcloud.com/theodi/friday-lunchtime-lecture-the-value-of-open-data-to-business-the-open-data-500-study
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Deirdre Lee
>
> Research Associate
>
> eGovernment Domain (DEG)
>
> Insight-NUIG
>
> IDA BusinessPark, Lower Dangan,
>
> Galway, Ireland
>
>
>
> deirdre.lee@deri.org
> skype: deirdrelee
>
> twitter: @deirdrelee
>
> linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> From: Makx Dekkers [mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com]
> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:11
> To: 'DWBP WG'
> Subject: RE: Two blog posts that may be of interest
>
>
>
> To me, Steve’s observation about Governments not accepting responsibility is
> an important one. Even the UK Open Government Licence, which I think
> qualifies as an Open Licence, contains this statement:
>
>
>
> Non warranty
>
>
>
> The Information is licensed ‘as is’ and the Information Provider excludes
> all representations, warranties, obligations and liabilities in relation to
> the Information to the maximum extent permitted by law.
>
>
>
> The Information Provider is not liable for any errors or omissions in the
> Information and shall not be liable for any loss, injury or damage of any
> kind caused by its use. The Information Provider does not guarantee the
> continued supply of the Information.
>
>
>
> So: Provider excludes all representations, warranties, obligations and
> liabilities, Provider is not liable for any errors or omissions, Provider
> does not guarantee the continued supply …
>
>
>
> I understand Steve’s conclusion that without some form of guarantee of
> quality and availability, businesses may think twice before building their
> products on such data.
>
>
>
> There is a bit of a tension between the push of a part of the open data
> community to “publish early, even if data may be ‘dirty’” and a business
> community that needs quality guarantees.
>
>
>
> Maybe something to include in BP guidelines? Something like: “If you publish
> data quickly without guarantees, you’re helping developers to experiment
> with the data and investigate innovative usage of the data; if on the other
> hand, you want to enable high-quality and sustainable products and services,
> you need to provide guarantees of quality and availability”.
>
>
>
> Makx.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Steven Adler [mailto:adler1@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:28 PM
> To: DWBP WG
> Subject: Two blog posts that may be of interest
>
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Here are two perspectives on the business use of Open Data.  I think we can
> take up the first topic as a recommendation in our Best Practices work.
>
> The question is, should Open Data license terms be machine readable?  And if
> so, should we (and can we) define a standard vocabulary to make it so?
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140512164919-384693-open-data-is-not-open-for-business?trk=mp-reader-card
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140514120932-384693-business-needs-open-data?trk=mp-reader-card
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"



-- 
Leigh Dodds
Freelance Technologist
Open Data, Linked Data Geek
t: @ldodds
w: ldodds.com
e: leigh@ldodds.com

Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 15:22:33 UTC