Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
AI Open Source Linux

Open Source Data Sets? Linux Foundation Introduces 'Community Data License Agreements' ( 31

"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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source Data Sets? Linux Foundation Introduces 'Community Data License Agreements'

Comments Filter:
  • by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Saturday October 28, 2017 @05:38PM (#55450907) Journal

    How/Why is this different from the Open Data [] license?

    • It's not strategic. Probably;y not webscale either.

    • by imidan ( 559239 )

      From their FAQ:

      The CDLA is also not an attempt to fix issues with other licenses – in fact we didn’t start with any other license as the model or base but rather went through a requirements gathering process to understand the use cases under which people were struggling with sharing data

      This is a really strange statement to me. They apparently didn't attempt to address any problem with any existing license, but went ahead and rolled their own license without any consideration for the development

  • by imidan ( 559239 ) on Sunday October 29, 2017 @03:01AM (#55451957)

    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.

  • They already provides any information you want freely. ;)

I am more bored than you could ever possibly be. Go back to work.