[od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant?

Tue Dec 20 03:37:42 UTC 2011

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Herb Lainchbury
<herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
> 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.

Great breakdown.

I agree, with minor caveat that 1b and 1c are probably ok per OKD's
integrity section. If they're not, then I'd guess CC BY/BY-SA, FDL
(and maybe others, haven't checked carefully) not permitting
endorsement shouldn't have been approved. Or the OKD integrity
language should be modified.

> 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.

That looks straightforward to me, but raises the issue of restrictions
on distributing with DRM/TPM, which are present in at least CC
BY/BY-SA, FDL, ODBL, perhaps others. Maybe a modification of OKD
section 4, which could be changed to allow the license to restrict
technical restrictions.

Mike