This is the compilation of daily summaries (most recent first) written by the topic facilitators. The goal of this page is to orient new readers of the topic. Please go to the thread to comment.
Go to Meeting legal/regulatory, ethical and sensitive data obligations
Summary 1 (June 15th to June 25th)
The discussion started out considering questions of licenses and license stacking . Participants tended to argue for “as open as possible”, in agreement with DiSSCo’s open access guidelines and GBIF’s license strategy. At the same time, a clear differentiation was recognized between research data generated based on public funding (-> as unrestricted licenses as possible) versus data as business capital , for which valid reasons exist to protect this resource. In the later case, it was argued that licenses function as tools for initiating communication between the data holder and the prospective user for a use agreement.
A second thematic thread was based on differing views of the role of open data for businesses . Opinions ranged from open data being of no interest and consequence to businesses, to alternatively the view that open data in some fields were fundamental for the advancements and the success of large to small businesses. Data, infrastructure and service quality arose from this discussion as a key characteristic proposed to be of fundamental importance to businesses. This was based on the suggestion that businesses’ data and datasets are of higher quality (-> fit for purpose) than open datasets. This might be the case, because of the distinct requirements and goals of the research versus business context. From there the question was asked, considering as example access and benefit sharing in the context of the Nagoya Protocol, which conditions will foster the sharing of high-quality data by businesses, for example, as non-monetary contributions to benefit sharing with societies.