In a digital age public sector geoinformation (PSGI) is potentially a vital link in the added-value chain. Yet private sector value-added resellers (VARs) still face a number of barriers to using PSGI. Price is only one impediment. The complexity of licences and restrictive licence conditions of PSGI may be an even bigger obstacle. Especially when combining different datasets, VARs can face a quagmire of conflicting licence conditions. Batty (2006 Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33 163–164) called for research that would stimulate value-added use of PSGI. However, inconsistent and intransparent licence conditions for PSGI are among the biggest obstacles of PSGI for VARs. This paper explores the current PSGI licences to assess the actual restrictions and how current obstacles can be levelled. The Creative Commons licensing concept was explored and adapted to make it suitable for licensing PSGI. The resulting concept of Geo Shared licences is a means to harmonise licence conditions for PSGI. Our research shows that the Geo Shared concept can be a valuable contribution to further harmonisation of PSGI licences and thus development of value-added chains. Furthermore, development of geographic information infrastructures will also be stimulated. Similarly, the concept can be considered as a serious option within the Infrastructure of Spatial Information for Europe (INSPIRE), as a way towards transparent harmonised licences in Europe and beyond.
BattyM, 2006, “Public sector information: chains of added value”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33163–164
3.
BoyleJ, 2007, “Text is free, we make money on volume(s)”Financial Times 22 January
4.
DreyfussR C, 1999, “Do you want to know a trade secret? How article 2B will make licensing trade secrets easier (but innovation more difficult)”Californian Law Review87193–267
5.
EC, 2003, “Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the reuse of public sector information”Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL34590–96, 31 December
6.
GrootNBregtACrompvoetsJPluijmersY, 2007, “Toegankelijkheid publieke geodata vooral gehindered door juridische barrières” [Accessibility of public sector geodata mostly hampered by legal barriers]VI Matrix15(8) 6–8
7.
HugenholtzP B, 2005, “Abuse of database right: sole-source information banks under the EU Database Directive”, in Antitrust, Patent and Copyright: EU and US Perspectives Eds LévêqueFShelanskiH (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 203–219
8.
KPMG, 2001, “Geospatial data policy study (executive summary)”, prepared by Garry Sears for GeoConnections policy advisory node, KPMG Consulting Inc., Ottawa, K1P 1A4
9.
McLaughlinJNicholsS, 1994, “Developing a national spatial data infrastructure”Journal of Surveying Engineering12062–76
MICUS, 2008b, “The value to industry of PSI: the business sector perspective”, in The Socioeconomic Effects of Public Sector Information on Digital Networks: Toward a Better Understanding of Different Access and Reuse Policies (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC) pp 10–16
13.
National Research Council, 2004Licensing Geographic Data and Services (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC)
14.
OnsrudH, 2006, “Management of Intellectual Property Use Licensing in a Commons of Geographic Data”, CGD IP White Paper, Department of Spatial Information Science and Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, ME, http://geodatacommons.umaine.edu/wpapers/CGD%20IP%20White%20Paper.pdf
15.
OnsrudHLopezX, 1998, “Intellectual property rights in disseminating digital geographic data, products and services: conflicts and commonalities among European Union and United States approaches”, in European Geographic Information Infrastructures: Opportunities and Pitfalls Eds MasserISalgéF (Taylor and Francis, London) pp 153–167
16.
PawloM, 2004, “What is the meaning of non-commercial?”, in International Commons at the Digital Age. La Création en Partage Eds BourcierDDulong de RosnayM (Romillat, Paris) pp 69–81
QSIC, 2007, “Queensland spatial imagery acquisition program 2007–2011”, Queensland Spatial Information Council and Queensland Government Natural Resources, Mines and Water, Brisbane, http://www.qsic.qld.gov.au
19.
QSIO, 2006, “Government information and open content licensing: an access and use strategy”, Queensland Spatial Information Office, Office of Economic and Statistical Research, and Queensland Treasury, Brisbane, http://www.qsic.qld.gov.au
20.
RajabifardAFeeneyM E FWilliamsonI P, 2002, “Directions for the future of SDI development”International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation411–22
21.
RAVI, 2000, “Economische effecten van laagdrempelige beschikkingstelling van overheidsinformatie” [Economic effects of making public sector information easily available], RAVI Bedrijvenplatform 00-02 (Amersfoort)
22.
SamuelsonP, 1998, “Legally speaking: does information have to be licensed?”Communications of the ACM4115–20
23.
STIA, 2001, “Phase 1 report: increase private sector awareness of, and enthusiastic participation in the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)”, Spatial Technologies Industry Association, Federal Geographic Data Committee, http://www.fgdc.gov/library/whitepapers-reports/sponsored-reports/stia/
24.
van EechoudMvan der WalB, 2008Creative Commons Licensing for Public Sector Information. Opportunities and Pitfalls (Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam)
25.
van LoenenB, 2006Developing Geographic Information Infrastructures: The Role of Information Policies PhD thesis, OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, Delft
26.
van LoenenBWelle DonkerFPloegerHZevenbergenJBesemerJ, 2006, “Beschikbaar stellen van geo-informatie bij Rijkswaterstaat. Analyse van de (on)mogelijkheden van het op korte termijn beschikbaar stellen van vier geo-data sets” [Making geo information available by the Department of Public Works: analysis of the (im)possibilities of making four geo-datasets available in the short term], OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, Delft
27.
van LoenenBZevenbergenJGiffGCrompvoetsJ, 2007, “Open toegankelijkheidsbeleid voor geo-informatie vergeleken: het gras leek groener dan het was” [Open access policy of geo information compared: the grass seemed greener than it was], OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, Delft
28.
VowlesGOnsrudHWagnerRWilsonC, 2007, “Models for rights management”, paper presented at the Workshop Open Geospatial Consortium GeoRM Working Group Conference, 15–20 July, Cambridge; copy available from the authors
29.
Welle DonkerF, 2006, “Belemmeringen in de toegankelijkheid van (overheids)geoinformatie” [Restrictions in accessibility of (public sector) geo information], in Geoloketten Publicaties Ed. HoogerwerfM (Geoloketten Consortium, Wageningen)
30.
Welle DonkerFZevenbergenJ, 2007, “Value added GI services: respective roles of private and public sector players”, in Proceedings of 13th EC-GI&GIS Workshop. INSPIRE Time: ESDI for the Environment 4–6 July 2007, Eds FullertonKPaukenerovaE, IES Institute for Environment and Sustainability and JRC European Commission, Porto, pp 53–56
