[od-discuss] OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time

Mon Jul 8 19:14:01 UTC 2013

+1s from Luis, Rufus, Andrew, Herb, and me. If nobody dissents, OGL
Canada 2.0 will be officially approved in 2 days.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
> As with OGL-UK, +1 on compliance with the OD as currently drafted;
> plus a note that we should adjust the OD to allow us to reject
> misguided jurisdiction/government-specific licenses like this one in
> the future, since they raise transaction costs without actually
> benefiting either the licensor or licensee.
>
> Luis
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>> I'm +1 on conformance. And great to see this in the repo -
>> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/licenses/inreview/OGL-CA-2.0.md
>> (makes it even easier to review!)
>>
>> Rufus
>>
>>
>> On 27 June 2013 22:15, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 from me too for conformance of OGL Canada 2.0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 Jun 2013, at 16:35, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 from me for conformance on OGL Canada v2.0.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Mark.
>>>>
>>>> All note there's also a brief report on feedback at
>>>> http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-consultation-report
>>>>
>>>> I'll start by saying despite outstanding quibbles, I'm +1 on conformance.
>>>> We'll use the standard procedure at
>>>> http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ ie it'll take at least two weeks
>>>> for a final decision.
>>>>
>>>> AC and other list members, even if you agree the issues below aren't
>>>> conformance blockers, further discussion of them is welcome, probably
>>>> pertinent for future license developments.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Levene, Mark <Mark.Levene at tbs-sct.gc.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we launched our new http://data.gc.ca portal last week and that’s
>>>>> the version that can be found here:
>>>>> http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada (available in French,
>>>>> as well: http://data.gc.ca/fra/licence-du-gouvernement-ouvert-canada) .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We hope you find it conformant.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --Mark
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: mlinksva at gmail.com [mailto:mlinksva at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mike
>>>>> Linksvayer
>>>>> Sent: June-26-13 4:30 PM
>>>>> To: Kent Mewhort
>>>>> Cc: Herb Lainchbury; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org; Levene, Mark
>>>>> Subject: Re: [od-discuss] Comparison of UK, Canada and Alberta Licences
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OGL-Canada v2.0 is attached to
>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000425.html
>>>>>
>>>>> wdiff of UK and Canada 2.0 at
>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000466.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Following up here because Kent's comments below the substantive ones. I
>>>>> agree with Kent's comments, though I'm not sure any rise to the level of
>>>>> non-conformance. I'd add that I'm not thrilled with
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This licence does not grant you any right to use: ... Information
>>>>> subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents,
>>>>> trade-marks and official marks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As remarked previously regarding similar licenses, I wonder if this
>>>>> doesn't make it rather ambiguous whether one has any right to use the
>>>>> information at all, given that "other intellectual property rights" is
>>>>> pretty broad. This was fixed in UK OGL 2.0 as I mentioned in trying to
>>>>> summarizes those changes:
>>>>>
>>>>> * In exemptions, "Information subject to" removed from clause ending
>>>>> with
>>>>>
>>>>> "other intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and
>>>>>
>>>>> design rights" (clarifying that these other rights aren't licensed
>>>>> rather
>>>>>
>>>>> than no permission granted if other rights pertinent, which makes it
>>>>> hard
>>>>>
>>>>> to tell when one has permission at all)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing from Mark Levene's "the specific version that Canada will
>>>>> be using when we launch our next-generation portal (coming very soon)" that
>>>>> this is the final version, to be released very soon. If that's the case the
>>>>> AC should vote on conformance, but would appreciation confirmation from Mark
>>>>> (cc'd) as well as replies re issues raised by Kent (others, please add
>>>>> yours).
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Some comments now that I'd had a chance to look at the difference
>>>>> between the UK2.0 and CAN2.0:
>>>>>
>>>>> Scope of the licence:
>>>>> -Use of any copyright and database right...indicates your acceptance
>>>>> +Use any any Information...indicates your acceptance
>>>>> Comment: Unless the intention is to make this a TOU rather than a
>>>>> licence, this change makes it rather confusing for users. There should not
>>>>> be an obligation for users to accept the terms if they're not using the data
>>>>> in a way that implicates copyright of the licensor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Attribution
>>>>> -If the Information Provider does not provide a specific attribution
>>>>> statement, or if you are using Information from several information
>>>>> providers and multiple attributions are not practical..you may use the
>>>>> following...:
>>>>> +If the Information Provider does not provide a specific attribution
>>>>> statement, or if you are using Information from several information
>>>>> providers and multiple attributions are not practical..you must use the
>>>>> following...:
>>>>> Comment: The change from "may" to "must" is interesting.  I actually
>>>>> find the original "may" unclear, but possible more flexible.  Does the "may"
>>>>> indicate that you don't have to use the specified attribution statement, and
>>>>> can attribute in your own fashion where necessary? On a strict reading of
>>>>> the licence text, I'd say no, you cannot use your own.  If you choose the
>>>>> negative branch of the "may", you're back to the obligation in the first
>>>>> paragraph that you must use the attribution statement specified by the
>>>>> Information Provider. However, this is incongruent with the case where no
>>>>> attribution statement is specified by the Information Provider.  Thus, all
>>>>> in all, this paragraph in the U.K. version is quite open to interpretation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Canadian version is clear. It's non-flexible attribution. You either
>>>>> use an attribution statement specified by the Information Provider or, in
>>>>> certain cases, the specific attribution statement in the licence itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exemption of "Information" Related to the my previous comments on the
>>>>> licence scope, there's a set of three changes that are rather nuanced and
>>>>> one might say even a bit sneaky:
>>>>> -Change 1: Instead of "This licence does not cover", the exemption now
>>>>> reads "This licence does not grant".
>>>>> -Change 2: Instead of exempting "other intellectual property rights",
>>>>> the licence does not grant "Information subject to other intellectual
>>>>> property rights"
>>>>> -Change 3: A change in the definition of "Information" that at first
>>>>> seems circular: "information resources protected by copyright or other
>>>>> information that is offered for use under the terms of this licence."
>>>>> Comment: My immediate thought was that this definition tried to be more
>>>>> expansive than copyright, only to pull away everything except copyright
>>>>> again in the exemptions section -- ending back up at square one. However,
>>>>> upon looking at it more closer, it's clear that the result of the three
>>>>> changes is that the licence does not GRANT any right other than copyright,
>>>>> but still attempts to impose all the OBLIGATIONS even where copyright does
>>>>> not apply.  I can't say I'm a big fan of this change....
>>>>>
>>>>> Kent
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13-06-19 09:32 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Brilliant.  I have to admit I hadn't thought of that when I was doing my
>>>>> manual comparison of the Canadian and Alberta ones.  I will definitely keep
>>>>> that in mind for the future.  Very handy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Kent.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> H
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The diff algorithms that Clipol uses still need some work, but they do a
>>>>> pretty decent job as between the UK 2.0, CAN 2.0 and Alberta 2.0 licenses:
>>>>> http://www.clipol.org/tools/compare?family_tree=18
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13-06-19 12:39 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Andrew.  Just wanted to double check as the filename is "OGLv2 0
>>>>> draft 20130306.docx" which I thought might mean it was from March 6, 2013
>>>>> and it may have evolved since then.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Stott
>>>>> <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The latest draft of UK OGL v2.0 was circulated by Jo Ellis on 6 June -
>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000424.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org
>>>>> [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Herb Lainchbury
>>>>> Sent: 18 June 2013 20:34
>>>>> To: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>>> Subject: [od-discuss] Comparison of UK, Canada and Alberta Licences
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have compared OGL Canada v2.0 (published) and OGL Alberta v2.0
>>>>> (published) licenses as promised.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Canada OGL v2.0 and Alberta v2.0 are very similar to each other with
>>>>> minor wording changes and one extra bullet in the Alberta exemptions section
>>>>> that indicates that it does not grant rights to use "Information or Records
>>>>> that are not accessible under applicable laws;".  It also includes a
>>>>> corresponding reference to the definition of Records in the Definitions
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am wondering if there is a more recent version of the OGL UK v2.0 that
>>>>> I can use to compare with as the one I have dates back to March.  Can
>>>>> someone point me to a link or copy me?  Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Herb Lainchbury
>>>>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>>>>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>>>>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Herb Lainchbury
>>>>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>>>>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>>>>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rufus Pollock
>>
>> Founder and Co-Director | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
>>
>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>
>> Empowering through Open Knowledge
>>
>> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn | OKF on Facebook |  Blog  |  Newsletter
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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