[od-discuss] OGL-Alberta v2.0 and OGL-BC v2.0 conformance decision time

Sun Jul 14 16:18:41 UTC 2013

I'm broadly with Kent.

The UK OGL 2.0 has an exemption for "information that has neither been
published nor disclosed under information access legislation (including the
Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the consent
of the Information Provider;".  As far as I can see the policy intent is to
exempt from the licence information which has been leaked or stolen.  It is
important to have the neither-nor construct because as a matter of policy
the UK has published information which had previously been refused under the
FOI Act, and in addition information which has been published is not
actually accessible under the UK-FOI.  Moreover the UK needs a broad
reference to "information access legislation" since there are rights to
information under not only the FOI Act but also under the Environmental
Protection Regulations and other legislation.

I'm not happy with the Alberta version because it could exclude published
information if that information was not accessible under applicable laws;
that makes it more difficult for users to establish that they have Open
rights to published information.  It would be better to use the UK
neither-nor of publication and accessibility.

Regards

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org
[mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Kent Mewhort
Sent: 14 July 2013 09:30
To: Mike Linksvayer
Cc: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Subject: Re: [od-discuss] OGL-Alberta v2.0 and OGL-BC v2.0 conformance
decision time

The OGL-BC excludes all information not accessible under FIPPA?! This
excludes materials such as:
  - "a record that is available for purchase by the public" (s. 3(1j))
  - "a record of a question that is to be used on an examination or test"
(s. 3(1d))
  - "a record containing teaching materials or research information of [post
secondary institutions]" (s. 3(1e) )

I hope this a correctable drafting oversight that should at the very least
read "not accessible under Sections 12 to 22.1 of the Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act".  These are the sections excepting personal
information and information that could be considered harmful to the
government.  However, even this would still problematically exempt
(depending on the discretion of a government department to choose to exempt
such information):

  - "information that would reveal advice or recommendations developed by or
for a public body or a minister" (s. 13(1))
  - "[information which could be reasonable expected to] harm the conduct by
the government of British Columbia of relations between that government and
[other Canadian government bodies]" (s. 16(1)(a))
  - "information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to
harm the financial or economic interests of a public body or the government
of British Columbia" (s. 17(1))
  - "that must be published or released to the public under an enactment"
(s. 20(1)(2))
  - and much more!

IMO, such provisions which make exemptions based on whether the work "can
reasonable be expected to harm" the licensor boil down to another form of
use restriction  -- these clauses only make this restriction at the source
source instead, and any particular type of downstream use is going to
post-facto affect whether it could have been "expected to harm" 
in the first place.  Thus, I suggest the OGL-BC is no non-compliant because
it discriminates based on field of endevour.

The extra provision in the Alberta OGL could be worded better to make it
clear it's not trying to the same thing as the BC licence -- but I don't see
anything particularly problematic and would suggest it's compliant.

Kent

On 13-07-13 02:36 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:

> We decided to consider these two together, right after OGL-Canada 
> v2.0, which we just approved.
>
> http://data.alberta.ca/licence
> http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/local/dbc/docs/license/OGL-vbc2.0.pdf
>
> They're both very similar to OGL-Canada v2.0, and even more similar to 
> each other -- the notable difference is that they add another 
> exemption
>
> Alberta 6(b): Information or Records that are not accessible under 
> applicable laws;
>
> BC 6(b): Information or Records not accessible under the Freedom of 
> Information and Protection of Privacy Act (B.C.);
>
> There are links to the relevant provincial acts (which I've not read
> yet) in each license.
>
> Herb wdiff'd OGL-Canada v2.0
> with Alberta 
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000467.html
> with BC 
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000468.html
>
> I'm +0 until further discussion.
>
> Anyone?
> * +1 or -1s?
> * See problems with the additional exemption?
> * Object to even considering sub-national licenses, or endorse our doing
so?
>
> 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