The legal environment is an increasingly important element in the adoption and use of geospatial data and technology. Right now, there are a number of camps, ranging from “no-license” to locked-down DRM. In the middle, there is Creative Commons and a host of other licensing schemes that allow or prohibit just about any possible use.

The no-license crowd is naive. All data is copyrighted when it’s published. Unless the publisher explicitly places the data into the public domain, the publisher has the right to decide who uses the data and how it’s used. Users need to know what they can do with the data without exposing themselves to legal problems later.

The locked-down DRM crowd thinks they can control and monetize every possible use of their precious data. Their attitude is that if you use their data, they own everything you do.

Neither camp’s approaches are realistic. The uses people have for data are too varied and unpredictable to put into binary categories or umbrella licensing schemes.

Licenses are essential. But, every licensing scheme has elements that make that particular scheme work in some cases and are wildly inappropriate for other cases. How do you chose? Right now, you have to hire a lawyer and hope for the best. There isn’t a lot of objective information available about long-term legal or economic consequences of any licensing scheme.

This is an area that needs a lot of work and standardization. Ed, do you know anybody who’s ready to take this on?