[od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant?

[Rufus Pollock]

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/