Open Data Movement & Big Data Capitalism Presentation at Digital Humanities Seminars 2017. Arwid Lund, assistant professor in Information Studies at Linnaeus University.

Research interest How does the open movement understand the playing out of processes between openness and enclosure on the data, knowledge and algorithmic level, between the state, civic society, and companies. I have been interested in how the movement understands its political mission and strategy: its political quest for an open society. Report available at: https://www.westminster.ac.uk/the-westminster-institute-for-advanced-studies/publications/westminster-advanced-studies

From Popper and Hayek to the debate between Free and Open Source Software Tkacz (2012) stresses the continuation between Popper’s Open society and its enemies, Friedrich Hayek’s writings on competitive markets as a decentralising force, and the debate between advocates of free and open source code during 1980’s and 90’s. I would like to point to the fact that Free Software Foundation and its main proponent Richard Stallman actually deviates from the liberal main road by pitching liberalism against liberalism.

Copyleft and Permissive Open Source Licenses * I use the term copyleft as in an enforced openness that includes a theoretical and only to some extent an effective acceptance of commodification. * I understand the permissive open source licenses as an openness also for subsequent enclosures that includes both a theoretical and effective acceptance of commodification.

Theoretical framework Permissive licenses empower companies enclosing source code or data in relations to companies and other entities that tries to develop truly open business models. Copyleft enforces companies to find open business models which reciprocates the gift of open information. This is also the so called the virus function of the copyleft license (Lund, 2017, 227, 237, 241). So when the permissive licenses focus on the technical interoperability of open and commercially enclosed code, the copyleft builds more robust commons over time, or foster sociality as Stallman expresses it.

Open Definition at opendefinition.org “Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose (subject, at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and openness).” Followed by a claimed more succinct formulation: “Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose”

Full definition’s two first paragraphs “The Open Definition makes precise the meaning of “open” with respect to knowledge, promoting a robust commons in which anyone may participate, and interoperability is maximized. Summary: Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share it — subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness.”

Three themes The opening up of the state’s data and its relation to derivative commercial enclosures 2. The opening up of companies’ enclosed data (including user-generated data on commercial platforms) 3. The political strategy built around the open and free

George on Share-Alike ”The share-alike constraint is still a constraint so I do not, I personally do not like it that much, as I do not like the non-commercial constraint, because I only need to preserve my ownership, my attribution” (George 40.02). It is not a good idea for the society to “converse to one definition of open that everybody somehow can relate to, like a Share-Alike”. He has no need for that (George 40.02). “I don’t want share-alike … to compromise good things like a cure for cancer”.

George on permissive licenses George stresses that “nobody stops another pharmaceutical company to use my [open] data and to release their own cure for cancer in the open” (George 44.55)., “the fact that I am not stopping the evil pharmaceutical company, does not mean that the good pharmaceutical company cannot exist“, but “they may have a more difficult life because they have to compete with the closed one” (George 44.55). “often the open ones will be damaged by lack of access to the closed one’s information” (George 46.15)

Analysis Favored pharmaceutical companies with closed business models would even prosper from the pharmaceutical company that is open about its research. But George does not address this growing inequality due to the use of permissive licenses and that this version of openness actually strengthens an enclosed capitalism, a process which would dis-incentivise companies to be open about their data. Thus, the permissive licenses in practice would seem to work against creating benchmarks of open business.

Richard on copyleft and permissive licenses Richard admits to an existing philosophical tension, refering to the discussion between FSF and OSI, and he portrays it as theoretical matter ”which we could spend time going into”, but in the end he tones down the tension: ”we wrote the definition as by the open source definition which is basi(.) free software as well”. He portray it as there exists an agreement when it comes to prioritize standards: ”if one piece of software is open it should be compatible to another piece of software, so it is open” (Richard 3.32, 4.26). *** Not even Stallman himself, according to Richard, would require the use of only share-alike licenses, “well, he would say generally you should use share alike”, but Richard does not think that Stallman ”ever would argue that like public domain material is not open” (Richard 4.26).

Richard on copyleft and permissive licenses (II) ”I got that … so I generally subscribe to that view personally, but I would say [what] Voltaire says, you know, ’I don’t agree about anything you said, but I die supporting your right to say it”, similarly while I think that copyleft and share alike is probably a better way to develop the commons, [but] I would always defend the right of people who use [a] MIT license or a license that is open but which is not share alike” (Richard 4.26)

Marta indirectly on the copyleft ”Like if, if they are using open data, and then the whole service is closed, then it is bad” (Marta 14.27). ”I did see a couple of models in Latin America, [a] company taking open data and then … because they used open data, they opened part of their data-set as open data, the one that is not taking other profits specifically, that can help others, and that is a good one, like if the data is used in a model … and it needs to be as a secret, then that is fine, but like you can release something else out of your data in order to … to give back” (Marta 14.27)

Jessica on copyleft She stresses that it is not fair that companies, that have not paid anything for it, enclose information that is made openly available (Jessica 6.25):”On the face of it … I would be uncomfortable with that because I am thinking that people actually provided this freely, but yet you are making something out of it ” (Jessica 6.25). ”No, I do not think that is fair. I think it should be a levelled plain field … it [would have] been nice if … it was a levelled plain field, you see what I mean? So, you can build on that information, but for you to then close off the data, I think that for me, I would worry, I think that is slightly more unethical” (Jessica 6.25)

Conclusions The answers moves from Jim’s and George’s explicitly friendly positions in relation to the permissive licenses, over Richard’s central position, to Marta’s partially reciprocal position, and Jessicas – in theory at least – more fully reciprocal position (that in a sense avoids the ideological uses of openness for commercial enclosures) Richard, George and Jim all use openness in an ideological way that tones down or does not mention at all that their openness actually strengthens companies with closed business models. Marta instead focuses on transparency and accountability.

Thanks for listening!