[od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant?

Tue Dec 20 03:07:10 UTC 2011

+1  "If so I'm wondering if we want to add some clarificatory language to
the
Definition around the provision of additional restrictions."

I think this is what is needed.

 The clauses called out in the OGL are:

[1] * 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;

[2] * ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the
Information or its source;

[3] * 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.

My thoughts on this:

If we say that it's fine to add additional restrictions and still be
considered open, then why bother calling out the ones that
are explicitly allowed, such as attribution.  I think that we have to
consider that putting additional restrictions on data beyond the
ones explicitly mentioned in the opendefinition defeats the definition
itself.

Looking at the OGL specifically, the three additional clauses break down
into 8 restrictions.  They are:

[1a] ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any
official status
[1b] ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests
that the Information Provider endorses you
[1c] ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests
that the Information Provider endorses your use of the Information
[2a] ensure that you do not mislead others
[2b] ensure that you do not misrepresent the Information
[2c] ensure that you do not misrepresent its source
[3a] ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the
Data Protection Act 1998
[3b] ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Privacy
and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003

a1, 1b, 1c, 2a seem to be saying "don't commit fraud",
2b and 2c seem to be talking specifically about misrepresentation,
and 3a, and 3b essentially say "don't break the law".

Thus, these constraints are basically short versions of existing laws and
policies.

My main concern is that these particular constraints are described with
words like "ensure", "suggests" and "mislead", which leave too much room
for
error and abuse and misunderstanding.  They will be interpreted in
different ways by different people causing confusion and uncertainty and
thus
they undermine the opendefinition and discourage people from using open
data overall while apparently providing no additional protection to
governments.

Because this affects multiple sections of the definition, I think perhaps
the best way to modify the definition is to add a condition.

Here's my suggested additional condition:

12.  THE LICENSE MUST NOT IMPOSE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
The license must not place any additional restrictions or conditions on the
access, use, reuse or redistribution of the data other than those
explicitly described under this definition.

I hope that's helpful.
Herb

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>wrote:

> To return to this very useful thread (apologies for dropping it at my end!)
>
> On 19 October 2011 18:56, 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.
>
> Excellent points Mike. So on this basis we'd be leaning towards
> non-conformance for the OGL (and any similar licenses). If so I'm
> wondering if we want to add some clarificatory language to the
> Definition around the provision of additional restrictions.
>
> > 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.
>
> Ditto. Do you have suggestions for specific mods to:
>
> <http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/>
>
> Rufus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20111219/4933c236/attachment-0001.html>