[od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant?

Tue Dec 13 10:34:14 UTC 2011

On 13 December 2011 00:46, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
> I am wondering if there is any will to apply opendefinition.org conformance
> test to new licenses (including those mentioned in this thread), thereby
> listing those licenses on the respective conformant or non-conformant pages?

Yes there is:

<http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/>

> As it stands there are a number of new licenses emerging and no clear way to
> tell if the licenses are conformant.

Agreed. We have considered most recent licenses submitted though I
know there are more out there.

Regarding, for example, the OGL debate is still open on this important
issue (and may possibly lead to some clarification of the definition)

> Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I think it's important for licenses to be
> tested by the community.

Agreed again.

Rufus

> Is anyone able to advise on this?
>
> Thank you,
> Herb
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rufus and all,
>>
>> I think the 3 clauses you've called out are quite problematic. IANAL
>> but "ensure" sounds burdensome, "official" is unclear, and "mislead"
>> is ripe for abuse. As the OKD draws much from the OSD, which itself is
>> based on the DFSG, I take license to call out the
>> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#tentacles_of_evil test. I
>> think analogously, if an oppressive government comes to power, the OGL
>> provides built-in excuses for suppression of uses of "open"
>> information it finds disagreeable. Maybe this concern is over the top,
>> just putting it out there.
>>
>> The clauses, even if OKD compliant, are also problematic for
>> compatibility with other licenses, though I don't understand why
>> sharealike licenses in particular -- eg can one practically adapt an
>> OGL work and release under CC-BY or ODC-BY? I know there's an
>> expressed intention to permit that, but downstream users would need to
>> be more careful than they'd need to be with a CC-BY or ODC-BY work
>> that doesn't incorporate OGL material. In any case it would be good to
>> document the OKD conformance approval process and in said
>> documentation encourage thinking about issues beyond narrow
>> conformance such as proliferation and compatibility.
>> http://opensource.org/approval may be a good place to start from.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
>> wrote:
>> > To follow up, I've re-read the license and the Definition [1] one more
>> > time and perhaps I'm over-reading here.
>> >
>> > [1]: <http://opendefinition.org/okd/>
>> >
>> > While the additional "integrity" style clauses may be an issue for
>> > reasons I've outlined I don't think, strictly, they violate any of the
>> > Open Definition principles (the issue would be around (3) and (6) --
>> > reuse and integrity). As such the OGL would be compliant.
>> >
>> > If we assume the OGL is compliant it is worth thinking a bit further
>> > about what would happen if we had a proliferation of these form of
>> > minor, but substantive, additional requirements on users and reusers
>> > and whether a modification to the Definition is needed to handle these
>> > and ensure compatibility is maintained (this would be a separate
>> > thread, though).
>> >
>> > Rufus
>> >
>> > On 19 October 2011 10:54, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>> >> Hi Andrew,
>> >>
>> >> In fact, unfortunately, in my opinion is that it is *not* compliant
>> >> [1]. Specifically these additional restriction clauses are
>> >> problematic:
>> >>
>> >> <quote>
>> >> * ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests
>> >> any official status or that the Information Provider endorses you or
>> >> your use of the Information;
>> >>
>> >> * ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the
>> >> Information or its source;
>> >>
>> >> * ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data
>> >> Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC
>> >> Directive) Regulations 2003.
>> >> </quote>
>> >>
>> >> The first of these, may be ok (it's a pseudo-integrity clause) though
>> >> I worry about interaction with share-alike (and worry about how easy
>> >> to interpret it is).
>> >>
>> >> The second of these is definitely problematic as it is additional
>> >> requirement that would probably be problematic with share-alike or
>> >> similar. I also think is a clause that creates a lot of uncertainty
>> >> (I'm a newspaper and use government data to write a news story. Can
>> >> the government accues me or misleading or misrepresenting the source
>> >> and hence void my license). It also seems one could achieve the intent
>> >> of this clause through other means -- simple notification, clear
>> >> statement about the mistake etc.
>> >>
>> >> The last item adds a completely new requirement which again leads to
>> >> problematic interaction with other licenses. Also, I wonder why this
>> >> needs to be in the license. Surely breaching that act is an offence in
>> >> itself -- in which case why add to the license?
>> >>
>> >> Rufus
>> >>
>> >> [1]: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2011-March/000032.html
>> >>
>> >> On 18 October 2011 16:27, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Herb
>> >>>
>> >>> As I recall the general view was that the UK OGL was compliant, but
>> >>> no-one
>> >>> had actually taken through the process to get it listed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Andrew Stott
>> >>> ________________________________
>> >>> From: od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org
>> >>> [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Herb
>> >>> Lainchbury
>> >>> Sent: 18 October 2011 16:15
>> >>> To: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> >>> Subject: [od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant?
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi All,
>> >>> I have looked through the archives for an answer to this question but
>> >>> haven't seen anything.
>> >>> I am interested in the UK Open Government
>> >>>
>> >>> License http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, and
>> >>> I think it conforms but it doesn't appear to be listed anywhere on
>> >>> the opendefinition.org site.
>> >>> Does anyone know if this has been discussed before?  Am I missing
>> >>> something?
>> >>> Thanks.
>> >>> --
>> >>> Herb Lainchbury
>> >>> Founder, OpenDataBC (Canada)
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> od-discuss mailing list
>> >>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> >>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation
>> >> Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
>> >> http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation
>> > Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
>> > http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > od-discuss mailing list
>> > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> https://creativecommons.net/ml
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> od-discuss mailing list
>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> Herb Lainchbury
> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
> www.dynamic-solutions.com
> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury

-- 
Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation
Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/