[od-discuss] Last day for OGL-C feedback

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Herb Lainchbury
> <herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
>> I think the "move to no-permission" suggestion  for OGL-C is valid.  I think
>> it satisfies both the conditions of the definition and the desire to remind
>> folks that they aren't getting extra things like endorsement.  I really hope
>> they can move it.
>
> It is absolutely the right thing to do, regardless of which side of
> open the current language marginally falls on.
>
> I started a draft document for feedback from this group; just an
> outline with some open questions
> http://opendefinition.okfnpad.org/ogl-c-draft-feedback

Hi, apologies for not pushing this forward sooner -- tomorrow (Jan 31)
-- is the last day to provide feedback on the OGL-C draft at
http://www.data.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=0D3F42BD-1

Herb blogged http://www.herblainchbury.com/2012/12/my-submission-open-government-license.html

I fleshed out something potentially from the OD AC in the pad above,
text copied below my signature for convenience. Edits welcome!

If we get a consensus over the next 24hrs, I'll submit feedback in the
name of the AC. If not, perhaps others will wish to make individual
comments.

Note that of the issues mentioned in December on this list, I do not
discuss the following, which is an interesting, but as far as I know,
entirely open question:

What is the best practice for ensuring that all necessary rights are
granted worldwide in a license intended for use by a specific
jurisdiction that does not itself (thankfully) have particular sui
generis restrictions? Stipulate a copyright-only grant? Would not a
broader grant be less confusing worldwide? (Another commentator had
suggested not mentioning sui generis restrictions as not relevant to
the Canadian context.)

Mike


DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

Thank you for opportunity to provide feedback on the Proposed Open
Government Licence Agreement at
http://www.data.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=0D3F42BD-1

The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) sets out principles to define
‘openness’ in relation to content and data such that the "open" in
open access, data, education, and government remains meaningful and
interoperable. The OKD is led by an international Advisory Council.

We congratulate you for your excellent work, in particular we commend
the abscence of the two most problematic items found in the OGK-UK
("ensure that you do not mislead..." and "ensure that your use of the
Information does not breach [data protection and privacy acts]"); such
terms are redundant and harm interoperability.

A similar, further improvment we suggest is to move "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" from a license condition to an exemption. This subtle
change would ensure OKD complaince, and remove an unnecessary barrier
to interoperability with other open licenses.

Finally, we have two comments about items in the exemptions section:

1) "This Licence does not grant you any right to use: ... Information
subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents and
trademarks." This might be placed even more strongly in the exemption
category if merely stating that no patents are trademark permissions
are granted, rather than removing any right to use information subject
to any of these.

2)  It is unclear what "does not grant you any right to use...domain
names of the Licensor;" means; control of a domain name is orthogonal
to data licensing, and limitations on linking to URLs in a domain are
harmful to an open Internet.

Sincerely,
Open Definition Advisory Council
opendefinition at okfn.org