[od-discuss] OGL-Canada proposal feedback from the Open Definition Advisory Council

[Herb Lainchbury]

Hello Mark,

Thank you for your note.

The rationale for moving the "ensure that you do not use the Information in
a way that suggests any official status..." out of the "You must" section
of the license is to basically change it from a condition of the license to
a reminder of laws that already exist.

I see now that putting it in the exemptions area might not be the best
choice either.

I wonder if there is a way to have the reminder be there but have it not be
worded as a condition.  If you can make it say simply that the license is
not granting official status - i.e. it's highlighting that it's not
granting something, then it would meet the open definition.   The way it is
now, it says we are granting something (right to use) but only under the
condition that you do not use it in a way that suggests official status.
 That condition is what makes it not open.

Just as you reference Canada's Privacy Act rather than reiterate the
definition, it's cleaner from a consumer perspective that the existing laws
about impersonating or misrepresenting the government of Canada be allowed
to do their job.

Maybe it's as simple as adding another heading just as you have done with
"No warranty".

You could say:

*No Official Status or Endorsement*
This Licence does not grant you any right to use the Information in a way
that suggests any official status or that the Information Provider endorses
you or your use of the Information.

I think this would both allow it to meet the open definition and satisfy
what you are intending.

Thank you very much for your work and for your attention to this concern.

Herb Lainchbury





On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Levene, Mark <Mark.Levene at tbs-sct.gc.ca>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thank you all for your comments. We have received quite a bit of
> substantial and useful feedback from a variety of sources. We're currently
> in the process of re-working the Licence, which we hope will be used widely
> across many jurisdictions in Canada (as our Minister recently promised on
> Twitter). So we want to get this right. The next version addresses a number
> of the concerns that have been raised on this list and from other venues.
>
> We will eliminate any reference to database rights. This is in the UK
> licence but since such rights don't exist in Canada, we eliminated the
> reference. It caused too much confusion and was probably the most common
> element in all the feedback.
>
> We're also adjusting the definitions. "Personal data" has been removed. We
> now reference Canada's Privacy Act and its definition of personal
> information. We feel this is clearer and permits the release of certain
> types of public personal information, including the examples listed in your
> comments. Other jurisdictions will be able to cite their own privacy
> legislation.
>
> We're not quite able to circulate the next version as we are still trying
> to finalize some wording with multiple players. That can be a sensitive
> issue, as I'm sure you recognize.
>
> We are, however, very interested in having our Licence verified as
> OD-conformant. From our perspective, there remains one outstanding issue:
> we're still not convinced of the rationale for moving "This Licence does
> not grant you any right to use: . Information subject to other intellectual
> property rights, including patents and trademarks" to the exemptions
> section. As was pointed out in the discussion, the Exemptions are all about
> types of information not about how to use the information.
>
> None of the types of information in the Exemptions clause should ever see
> the light of day because there are (and will continue to be) procedural
> checks and balances for government departments to meet prior to release of
> data or information. Other than attribution, all we're saying is that
> you're not allowed to say that you officially represent the Government of
> Canada. That's not something you can control internally. Otherwise, you can
> do as you see fit with the data. We think this meets the open definition
> and we'd value your opinions.
>
> --Mark
>
> Mark Levene
> Open Government Secretariat  | Secrétariat du gouvernement ouvert
> Information Management | Gestion de l'information
> Chief Information Officer Branch | Direction du dirigeant principal de
> l'information
> Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat | Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du
> Canada
> Ottawa, Canada K1A 0R5
> Mark.Levene at tbs-sct.gc.ca
> Telephone | Téléphone 613-952-5948 / Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-946-9893/ Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur
> 613-957-9090
> Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:
> od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Mike Linksvayer
> Sent: January 31, 2013 4:44 PM
> To: Open Government WG List; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: [od-discuss] OGL-Canada proposal feedback from the Open
> Definition Advisory Council
>
> http://opendefinition.org/2013/01/31/ogl-canada-proposal-feedback/
>
> 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
>



-- 
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/20130206/a27bc6e6/attachment-0001.html>