[od-discuss] Comparison of UK, Canada and Alberta Licences

Levene, Mark Mark.Levene at tbs-sct.gc.ca
Wed Jun 26 20:37:26 UTC 2013 

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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://www.dynamic-solutions.com>
http://twitter.com/herblainchbury



--
Herb Lainchbury
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
www.dynamic-solutions.com<http://www.dynamic-solutions.com>
http://twitter.com/herblainchbury


_______________________________________________

od-discuss mailing list

od-discuss at lists.okfn.org<mailto: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://www.dynamic-solutions.com>
http://twitter.com/herblainchbury


_______________________________________________
od-discuss mailing list
od-discuss at lists.okfn.org<mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130626/d843f039/attachment.htm>

More information about the od-discuss mailing list