[od-discuss] OD Proliferation Policy

Tue Jun 18 05:15:59 UTC 2013

Per http://bit.ly/od-meeting-doc following up on this:

....

Enhancing the submission and review process for licenses (including
publication of results)

Add proliferation policy?
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000373.html

* RP: strongly support this.
* Explicitly: duplication is a reason to be resistant to reviewing conformance.
  * Require a statement of motivation and difference when someone
submits a license
  * If they press we would not refuse to to conformance
* Specific category of “recommended” licenses (versus non-recommended)
* ML: cf opensource.org process
* ACTION: [ML] ping back to Kent on list

...

There are actually two things here
* Tweaking http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ to emphasize
explanation of motivation and why another license needed; relatively
easy -- any suggested edits?
* Tweaking http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ to recategorize and
recommend some licenses over others (beyond the easy old/deprecated
distinction now made) -- any proposals?

Mike

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> Anyone want to suggest an addition or other edit to
> http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ ?
>
> I would guess maybe another point in the submission instructions and a
> paragraph summarizing the excellent points Kent makes below. Kent? :-)
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca> wrote:
>> Walter, I disagree that the " the question is not why the City of Calgary
>> finds it necessary to have a special license but whether the existing
>> license is acceptable as is, can be made open with minor modification, or
>> should be abandoned in favour of what is currently being recommended".
>> Perhaps this is technically true as per the current OD procedure and the
>> definition itself, but I think this may need to change.
>>
>>
>> Sooner or later, we'll need to have some type of policy to deal with licence
>> proliferation.  The growing list (already in the dozens) of municipalities
>> and other government bodies in Canada who are coming up with their own
>> custom licences is a disconcerting and increasingly problematic trend.  The
>> Calgary licence is just one of many Canadian municipal data licences that
>> could easily be replaced with a suitable standard licence.  It's also likely
>> the approval of one will just open a flood gate of every other city in
>> Canada requesting similar approval.
>>
>> The OSI's report on licence proliferation could be a good starting point for
>> a policy here, and their justification hits the nail on the head:
>> "While it might at first sight not seem appropriate for the popularity of a
>> license to be significant in categorizing it, popular and long-established
>> licenses have an important thing going for them: the existence of an
>> established interpretive tradition and a well-developed set of expectations
>> about correct behavior with respect to them. This is significant in reducing
>> confusion and (especially in common-law countries) is even likely to
>> condition judicial interpretation of the licenses."
>>
>> These non-reusable licences, such as the one the City of Calgary is using,
>> are typically called "vanity licences" because they're akin to vanity
>> licence plates: there's no real justification for them other than the
>> branding of one's own name into the licence and a feeling of control over
>> the labels and text.  I'd like to see much more justification for the
>> special needs of the City of Calgary justifying a special licence.
>>
>> In fact, overall, I'd suggest that a good procedural policy would be a
>> reverse burden that requires anyone requesting a licence review to justify
>> why CC, ODC, or, at the very least, national government licences, are not a
>> suitable fit.  Even without having a strict requirement for a licence to
>> differ, a procedural step of needing to adequately justify the differences
>> will at least encourage licencors to look at, and better consider, these
>> existing options.
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13-03-18 08:21 PM, Simbirski, Walter wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>>
>>
>> In order to understand why City of Calgary would find it necessary to have a
>> special license  it should be noted that the current City of Calgary license
>> is well over a year old, which may not seem very old but it predates some of
>> the other licenses. So the question is not why the City of Calgary finds it
>> necessary to have a special license but whether the existing license is
>> acceptable as is, can be made open with minor modification, or should be
>> abandoned in favour of what is currently being recommended. We are currently
>> undergoing what should be a major overhaul of our Open Data Catalogue and
>> reviewing all aspects of the catalogue including the license.
>>
>>
>>
>> With that in mind I would answer your questions as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.       Limiting the liability of the City would be a simpler and better –
>> agreed.
>>
>> 2.       The “any lawful use” clause is to make it clear that the City of
>> Calgary does not endorse the use of the data in a manner that would be
>> deemed unlawful. The issue of jurisdiction may be problematic but we felt
>> this was less restrictive than a clause such as, “You must not distort,
>> mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work
>> which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation”,
>> that is part of the current Creative Commons License Legal Code (section 4.c
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode ).  We did not want to
>> be viewed as limiting the user’s right to criticize the City of Calgary.
>>
>> 3.       This is actually two issues – the first being that the user would
>> be bound by later changes to the license and I agree that this should be
>> replaced with a statement granting perpetual use under the license applied
>> at the time of download. The second issue is the one of attribution and,
>> again, it relates the Creative Commons legal statement identified in item 2
>> – we felt that we would not restrict users from using the data in a manner
>> that might be prejudicial to the City’s honor or reputation, provided such
>> use was lawful in nature,  but we also didn’t want it to appear that the
>> City was endorsing products that could be viewed as immoral or as a conflict
>> of interest even though they may be lawful in nature.
>>
>> 4.       Agreed. No such restriction exists with any data sets available
>> today but we felt that in the future such data sets could be  made available
>> directly or indirectly through the Open Data Catalogue. One of the reasons
>> for this exercise is to obtain permission to use the OKFN’s OPEN DATA button
>> which would provide a readily identifiable means of distinguishing truly
>> open data sets from those which may have restrictions.
>>
>>
>>
>> With respect to your statement:
>>
>>
>>
>> [2] Note that CC-BY 3.0 actually allows the licensor to make the attribution
>> optional, if that is what you want.  It also has provisions about what to do
>> if there would be a lengthy list of attributions in a “collection”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry – I’m not seeing that in the CC license. I’m not sure what I’m
>> missing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again – Thanks for taking the time to respond.
>>
>>
>>
>> Walter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>