University of Glasgow

Roderic Page

![nd.large.png](http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Gct8lVAxKqQ/TRt_2SQxrwI/AAAAAAAAA0s/bQHZhz44vB4/nd.large.png?imgmax=800){border="0"
width="200" height="200" align="right"}The Plant List
(<http://www.theplantlist.org/>) has been released today, complete with
[glowing press
releases](http://www.mobot.org/events/Assets/10195ThePlantList.pdf). The
list includes some 1,040,426 names. I eagerly looked for the
**Download** button, but none is to be found. You can grab download
individual search results (say, at family level), but not the whole data
set.  
  
OK, so that makes getting the complete data set a little tedious (there
are 620 plant families in the data set), but we can still do it without
too much hassle (in fact, I\'ve grabbed the complete data set while
writing this blog post). Then I see that the data is licensed under a
[Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
(CC BY-NC-ND) license. Creative Commons is good, right? In this case,
not so much. The CC BY-NC-ND license includes the clause:  

> You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

So, you can look but not touch. You can\'t take this data (properly
attributed, or course) and build your own list, for example with
references linked to DOIs, or to the [Biodiversity Heritage
Library](http://biodiversitylibrary.org) (which is, of course, exactly
what I plan to do). That\'s a derivative work, and the creators of the
Plant List don\'t want you to do that. Despite this, the Plant List want
us to use the data:  

> Use of the content (such as the classification, synonymised species
> checklist, and scientific names) for publications and databases by
> individuals and organizations for not-for-profit usage is encouraged,
> on condition that full and precise credit is given to The Plant List
> and the conditions of the Creative Commons Licence are observed.

Great, but you\'ve pretty much killed that by using BY-NC-ND. Then
there\'s this:  

> If you wish to use the content on a public portal or webpage you are
> required to contact The Plant List editors at editors@theplantlist.org
> to request written permission and to ensure that credits are properly
> made.

Really? The whole point of Creative Commons is that the permissions are
explicit in the license. So, actually I **don\'t** need your permission
to use the data on a public portal, CC BY-NC-ND gives me permission (but
with the crippling limitation that I can\'t make a derivative work).  
  
So, instead of writing a post congratulating the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew and Missouri Botanical Garden (MOBOT) for releasing this data, I\'m
left spluttering in disbelief that they would hamstring its use through
such a poor choice of license. Kew and MOBOT could have made the Plant
List available as open data using one of the licenses listed on the
[Open Definition](http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses/) web site,
such as putting the data in the public domain (for example, or using a
[Creative Commons CC0
license](http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)). Instead,
they\'ve chosen a restrictive license which makes the data closed,
effectively killing the possibility for people to build upon the effort
they\'ve put into creating the list. Why do biodiversity data providers
seem determined to cling to data for dear life, rather than open it up
and let people realise its potential?  
  


The Plant List (http://www.theplantlist.org/) has been released today, complete with glowing press releases. The list includes some 1,040,426 names. I eagerly looked for the
<strong>
 Download
</strong>
button, but none is to be found. You can grab download individual search results (say, at family level), but not the whole data set.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

The Plant List: nice data, shame it's not open