Comments on: the WMATA/Nextbus contract

By: End in the Boy » Blog Archive » The Wmata/nextbus Contract Manifest Density

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:59:32 +0000

[...] Source: http://www.manifestdensity.net [...]

By: Kansas Jack

Kansas Jack — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:43:42 +0000

Hey Tom – when you’re meeting with WMATA, maybe you could ask them why they omitted the even pages (or odd pages, depending on the document) from the materials they sent to Michael Perkins. Right? I mean, look at paragraph 30, which you excerpt above. It goes (a), (1), (2) and then skips to (e). What happened to the page with paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)?

Second, I think your concern is well-founded. The language surrounding data use rights is quite vague, and I’m not sure the language in Sec. 3.9 is all that favorable. What does “full rights” mean? Maybe that’s normal for procurement, but that’s very ambiguous phrasing in most other contexts. If “full rights” really meant full rights, then the second sentence shouldn’t be there. The second sentence is unfavorable from a developer’s perspective because arguably it can be read as a limitation on the first sentence. If you read it that way, all WMATA received is the right to share data to, say, MARC to display to MARC travelers, such that WMATA has no rights to sublicense rights to data to developers.

Similarly, the part of Section 30 excerpted above doesn’t seem all that helpful. It deals with “technical data,” which is defined in paragraph (e), and generally appears to include certain systems documentation and software. Nowhere does the definition reference CIS data or, frankly, any other data.

It would be interesting to see what’s in Section 4.5.1 of Part II of the Technical Specs (referenced on pg. 103 of the PDF), which also purports to address data rights.

Finally, here’s some cynicism for you ~ statements from business people and engineers at Nextbus, NBI and WMATA are nice, but not perfect. The contract language ultimately governs. The folks who you’re working with now maybe very cooperative, but they may not have their jobs tomorrow and their replacements may take a very different view of who owns what.

Best of luck, kick ass and keep up the great work.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:03:27 +0000

Again, that’s great, but I think you’re mistaken when you claim that this is obvious. I suggest googling for “Routesy” and doing a bit of background reading.

By: TransitHappy

TransitHappy — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:40:41 +0000

Too much time – I’m embarrassed to even be reading this stuff. The data is owned by WMATA and they can tell NextBus (the real one) whatever they want. MBTA, another NextBus customer, has completely opened up their data feed so that third-party developers can build anything they want with the data.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:52:32 +0000

Great! The thing is, nobody’s been willing to put that in writing. NBIS has been happy to talk about licensing arrangements, and Nextbus Inc. has been happy to make assertions but not go on the record. Meanwhile, WMATA has… well, they haven’t said much. For those working at one of these three institutions — which I assume means you — this is all probably really obvious. But for those of us considering investing time into developing applications based on Nextbus data, this has not been as clear, and it’s good to have the situation delineated clearly by the contract.

By: I Know

I Know — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:33:05 +0000

Wow, talk about making a big deal out of nothing. WMATA owns the rights to the data – this has been asserted by both WMATA and the real NextBus, Inc. It is up to WMATA, and WMATA alone, to decide if you can make apps without paying licensing fees. Why does this keep coming up? A: Too many bored people with lots of time on their hands trying to find more problems with Metro.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:56:22 +0000

I admit that that specific phrasing struck me as… troublesome.

But WMATA can save us! If they just, uh, agree to sacrifice a potential revenue stream. Hm. This may not be the best time to ask.

By: Sommer

Sommer — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:46:48 +0000

“small low-cost electronic devices intended for home use” — oh man, you must be peeing yourself.