[od-discuss] Move to non-conformant?!: UK PSI (Public Sector Information) Click-Use Licence (was no endorsement clauses and OKD conformance (was Re: Up and Coming: Open Government Licence in Canada (OGL-C)))

[Luis Villa]

+1.

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Andrew Stott
<andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:
> +1
>
>
>
> Although the Click-Use Licence can still be found on some UK government
> websites, it is not a licence that forms part of the current UK Government
> Licensing Framework
> (https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/government-licensing/licence-models.htm).
> I suspect that it is effectively obsolete.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org
> [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Herb Lainchbury
> Sent: 10 December 2012 22:19
> To: Mike Linksvayer
> Cc: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [od-discuss] Move to non-conformant?!: UK PSI (Public Sector
> Information) Click-Use Licence (was no endorsement clauses and OKD
> conformance (was Re: Up and Coming: Open Government Licence in Canada
> (OGL-C)))
>
>
>
> +1
>
> On Dec 10, 2012 1:38 PM, "Mike Linksvayer" <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
>> Also the UK PSI click-use license
>> http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ukpsi/ has a no-endorsement clause
>> and is on the conformant list, but ought be removed for lots of other
>> problems, whatever we decide about may-not-imply-endorsement:
>>     "not use the Material for the principal purpose of advertising or
>> promoting a particular product or service, or in a way which could
>> imply that it is endorsed by a Department or a Public Sector
>> Organisation;"
>
> I don't know how the UK PSI Click-Use Licence got on the conformant
> list -- it has been there since at least
> http://web.archive.org/web/20071227230454/http://opendefinition.org/licenses/
> -- prior to any OD list archives.
>
> It is very clearly NOT conformant. A probably incomplete list of
> clauses that make it so:
>
>     6. How the Material may be reproduced
>
> Does not grant permission to make any adaptation -- only translations
> "by a competent translator" and conversion to formats for the vision
> impaired. Not conformant with OKD #3.
>
> Nearly every point in the Obligations section is problematic. Some are
> odd for a public license (which this tries not to be), so I'll just
> note the problematic ones that have been discussed recently regarding
> UK OGL -- may-not-imply-endorsement and do-not-mislead:
>
>     9.6 not use the Material for the principal purpose of advertising
> or promoting a particular product or service, or in a way which could
> imply that it is endorsed by a Department or a Public Sector
> Organisation;
>
>     9.7 not use the Material in any way that is likely to mislead others;
>
> Of course the first part of 9.6 is also non-conformant with OKD#8.
>
>
> Can I get a couple +1's on moving this to non-conformant with the
> above rationale?
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>