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

Tue Jul 16 11:36:19 UTC 2013

>
> But so long as a license meets the license related conditions of the 
> definition and could potentially be applied successfully to make at 
> least one work open, then the I think license should be considered open.
But what about when it becomes impossible or impractical for a user to 
know when the licence is, in fact, successfully applied to any 
particular single work? I think we should be looking at the holistic 
effect of clauses, rather than whether they're technically exemptions or 
conditions.  Because of the fact that copyright is a exclusive right 
held by the copyright owner that's strict liability (it doesn't matter 
if you thought the work wasn't exempt or not), a vague exemption can 
amount to the same thing as a use restriction.

Hypothetically consider if the restriction in the BC OGL was modified 
only slightly to:
  - This license does not grant you any right to use information which, 
in the sole opinion of the Government of British Columbia, could 
reasonably be expected to harm the financial or economic interests of a 
public body or the government of British Columbia.

The only difference from the above versus the real licence is the "in 
the sole opinion of the Government of British Columbia"; however, is 
leaving it all to the opinion of a court all that much better? If a 
person uses some published data to expose the government in a way that 
hurts their economic interests, this is going to be excellent proof that 
it could have been "reasonably expected to harm" these interests in the 
first place.

Specific and clear exemptions which are easily determinable by a user 
are fine; ones that are loaded with discretionary clauses such as "could 
reasonably be expected" are not clear, put much too much of a risk 
burden on the licencee, and, in my opinion, are not open.

Kent