[od-discuss] OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time

Mike Linksvayer ml at gondwanaland.com
Thu Jul 11 16:02:51 BST 2013


OGL Canada 2.0 approved as conformant and added to
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/

Will kick off formal approval-or-lack-thereof for Alberta and BC
together tomorrow.

Mike

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> +1s from Luis, Rufus, Andrew, Herb, and me. If nobody dissents, OGL
> Canada 2.0 will be officially approved in 2 days.
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
>> As with OGL-UK, +1 on compliance with the OD as currently drafted;
>> plus a note that we should adjust the OD to allow us to reject
>> misguided jurisdiction/government-specific licenses like this one in
>> the future, since they raise transaction costs without actually
>> benefiting either the licensor or licensee.
>>
>> Luis
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>>> I'm +1 on conformance. And great to see this in the repo -
>>> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/licenses/inreview/OGL-CA-2.0.md
>>> (makes it even easier to review!)
>>>
>>> Rufus
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 June 2013 22:15, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 from me too for conformance of OGL Canada 2.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27 Jun 2013, at 16:35, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 from me for conformance on OGL Canada v2.0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Mark.
>>>>>
>>>>> All note there's also a brief report on feedback at
>>>>> http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-consultation-report
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll start by saying despite outstanding quibbles, I'm +1 on conformance.
>>>>> We'll use the standard procedure at
>>>>> http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ ie it'll take at least two weeks
>>>>> for a final decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> AC and other list members, even if you agree the issues below aren't
>>>>> conformance blockers, further discussion of them is welcome, probably
>>>>> pertinent for future license developments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Levene, Mark <Mark.Levene at tbs-sct.gc.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we launched our new http://data.gc.ca portal last week and that’s
>>>>>> the version that can be found here:
>>>>>> http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada (available in French,
>>>>>> as well: http://data.gc.ca/fra/licence-du-gouvernement-ouvert-canada) .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We hope you find it conformant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: mlinksva at gmail.com [mailto:mlinksva at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mike
>>>>>> Linksvayer
>>>>>> Sent: June-26-13 4:30 PM
>>>>>> To: Kent Mewhort
>>>>>> Cc: Herb Lainchbury; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org; Levene, Mark
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [od-discuss] Comparison of UK, Canada and Alberta Licences
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OGL-Canada v2.0 is attached to
>>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000425.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wdiff of UK and Canada 2.0 at
>>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000466.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following up here because Kent's comments below the substantive ones. I
>>>>>> agree with Kent's comments, though I'm not sure any rise to the level of
>>>>>> non-conformance. I'd add that I'm not thrilled with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This licence does not grant you any right to use: ... Information
>>>>>> subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents,
>>>>>> trade-marks and official marks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As remarked previously regarding similar licenses, I wonder if this
>>>>>> doesn't make it rather ambiguous whether one has any right to use the
>>>>>> information at all, given that "other intellectual property rights" is
>>>>>> pretty broad. This was fixed in UK OGL 2.0 as I mentioned in trying to
>>>>>> summarizes those changes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * In exemptions, "Information subject to" removed from clause ending
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "other intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> design rights" (clarifying that these other rights aren't licensed
>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>
>>>>>> than no permission granted if other rights pertinent, which makes it
>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to tell when one has permission at all)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm guessing from Mark Levene's "the specific version that Canada will
>>>>>> be using when we launch our next-generation portal (coming very soon)" that
>>>>>> this is the final version, to be released very soon. If that's the case the
>>>>>> AC should vote on conformance, but would appreciation confirmation from Mark
>>>>>> (cc'd) as well as replies re issues raised by Kent (others, please add
>>>>>> yours).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some comments now that I'd had a chance to look at the difference
>>>>>> between the UK2.0 and CAN2.0:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scope of the licence:
>>>>>> -Use of any copyright and database right...indicates your acceptance
>>>>>> +Use any any Information...indicates your acceptance
>>>>>> Comment: Unless the intention is to make this a TOU rather than a
>>>>>> licence, this change makes it rather confusing for users. There should not
>>>>>> be an obligation for users to accept the terms if they're not using the data
>>>>>> in a way that implicates copyright of the licensor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attribution
>>>>>> -If the Information Provider does not provide a specific attribution
>>>>>> statement, or if you are using Information from several information
>>>>>> providers and multiple attributions are not practical..you may use the
>>>>>> following...:
>>>>>> +If the Information Provider does not provide a specific attribution
>>>>>> statement, or if you are using Information from several information
>>>>>> providers and multiple attributions are not practical..you must use the
>>>>>> following...:
>>>>>> Comment: The change from "may" to "must" is interesting.  I actually
>>>>>> find the original "may" unclear, but possible more flexible.  Does the "may"
>>>>>> indicate that you don't have to use the specified attribution statement, and
>>>>>> can attribute in your own fashion where necessary? On a strict reading of
>>>>>> the licence text, I'd say no, you cannot use your own.  If you choose the
>>>>>> negative branch of the "may", you're back to the obligation in the first
>>>>>> paragraph that you must use the attribution statement specified by the
>>>>>> Information Provider. However, this is incongruent with the case where no
>>>>>> attribution statement is specified by the Information Provider.  Thus, all
>>>>>> in all, this paragraph in the U.K. version is quite open to interpretation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Canadian version is clear. It's non-flexible attribution. You either
>>>>>> use an attribution statement specified by the Information Provider or, in
>>>>>> certain cases, the specific attribution statement in the licence itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exemption of "Information" Related to the my previous comments on the
>>>>>> licence scope, there's a set of three changes that are rather nuanced and
>>>>>> one might say even a bit sneaky:
>>>>>> -Change 1: Instead of "This licence does not cover", the exemption now
>>>>>> reads "This licence does not grant".
>>>>>> -Change 2: Instead of exempting "other intellectual property rights",
>>>>>> the licence does not grant "Information subject to other intellectual
>>>>>> property rights"
>>>>>> -Change 3: A change in the definition of "Information" that at first
>>>>>> seems circular: "information resources protected by copyright or other
>>>>>> information that is offered for use under the terms of this licence."
>>>>>> Comment: My immediate thought was that this definition tried to be more
>>>>>> expansive than copyright, only to pull away everything except copyright
>>>>>> again in the exemptions section -- ending back up at square one. However,
>>>>>> upon looking at it more closer, it's clear that the result of the three
>>>>>> changes is that the licence does not GRANT any right other than copyright,
>>>>>> but still attempts to impose all the OBLIGATIONS even where copyright does
>>>>>> not apply.  I can't say I'm a big fan of this change....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kent
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13-06-19 09:32 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brilliant.  I have to admit I hadn't thought of that when I was doing my
>>>>>> manual comparison of the Canadian and Alberta ones.  I will definitely keep
>>>>>> that in mind for the future.  Very handy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Kent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The diff algorithms that Clipol uses still need some work, but they do a
>>>>>> pretty decent job as between the UK 2.0, CAN 2.0 and Alberta 2.0 licenses:
>>>>>> http://www.clipol.org/tools/compare?family_tree=18
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13-06-19 12:39 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Andrew.  Just wanted to double check as the filename is "OGLv2 0
>>>>>> draft 20130306.docx" which I thought might mean it was from March 6, 2013
>>>>>> and it may have evolved since then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Stott
>>>>>> <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The latest draft of UK OGL v2.0 was circulated by Jo Ellis on 6 June -
>>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000424.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>> [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Herb Lainchbury
>>>>>> Sent: 18 June 2013 20:34
>>>>>> To: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>> Subject: [od-discuss] Comparison of UK, Canada and Alberta Licences
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have compared OGL Canada v2.0 (published) and OGL Alberta v2.0
>>>>>> (published) licenses as promised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Canada OGL v2.0 and Alberta v2.0 are very similar to each other with
>>>>>> minor wording changes and one extra bullet in the Alberta exemptions section
>>>>>> that indicates that it does not grant rights to use "Information or Records
>>>>>> that are not accessible under applicable laws;".  It also includes a
>>>>>> corresponding reference to the definition of Records in the Definitions
>>>>>> section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am wondering if there is a more recent version of the OGL UK v2.0 that
>>>>>> I can use to compare with as the one I have dates back to March.  Can
>>>>>> someone point me to a link or copy me?  Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Herb Lainchbury
>>>>>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>>>>>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Herb Lainchbury
>>>>>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>>>>>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> od-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Herb Lainchbury
>>>>>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>>>>>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> od-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> od-discuss mailing list
>>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> od-discuss mailing list
>>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Rufus Pollock
>>>
>>> Founder and Co-Director | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
>>>
>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>>
>>> Empowering through Open Knowledge
>>>
>>> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn | OKF on Facebook |  Blog  |  Newsletter
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> od-discuss mailing list
>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> od-discuss mailing list
>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss



More information about the od-discuss mailing list