[od-discuss] Open Government License - Alberta

[Herb Lainchbury]

"I think a happy medium is waiving any privileges the licensor may have,
understanding others could hold other privileges."

Agreed.  Thanks.


On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Herb Lainchbury
> <herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
> > I am thinking that this technically would meet the definition, however,
> as I
> > have mentioned before (
> > http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-June/000153.html) , we
> > continue to see rights clearing issues.
> [...]
> > Having said that, the definition doesn't currently require any sort of
> > rights clearing, or publishers saying specifically what the license
> applies
> > to.  I seem to recall someone (Mike?) saying that some versions of CC
> have
> > similar clauses that presumably protect the publisher in case they
> > inadvertently publish someone else's work.   I guess my concern is mainly
> > that this policy leaves the consumer on their own to figure out if a
> right
> > is being infringed, even though they are typically the least equipped to
> do
> > so, often having no way to establish the origin of the data.
>
> Only 1.0 of the various CC licenses (the ones first published in 2002,
> not CC0) include a warranty of having secured rights, see 5(a) of
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode
>
> This was removed in 2.0, see https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216
>
> There has been some discussion of this again re 4.0 which you can read
> about at
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Disclaimer_of_warranties_and_related_issues
> but the end result is it will only be made more explicit that a
> licensor can offer warranties if they want.
>
> I can't think of any public license besides CC 1.0 ones that include a
> warranty of non-infringement. PDDL definitely does not; I'm not sure
> what you mean in
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-June/000153.html
>
> I understand the logic/appeal of wanting required warranties as you
> express above, but the nature of various "IP" regimes makes them hard
> to offer without compensation, and runs danger of making "open" be
> seen as a cost center even more than it already is. I think a happy
> medium is waiving any privileges the licensor may have, understanding
> others could hold other privileges. Thus my quibble with “This Licence
> does not grant you any right to use: … Information subject to other
> intellectual property rights, including patents and trademarks.” which
> would seem to be kind of an anti-warranty -- if subject to other
> privileges, I don't offer you a license at all!
>
> Mike
>



-- 
Herb Lainchbury
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
www.dynamic-solutions.com
http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130609/047ed765/attachment-0001.html>