[od-discuss] OD Proliferation Policy

Tue Jun 18 08:48:48 UTC 2013

Could we ticket these 2 items - I fear they may get lost in traffic.

I also wonder if it worth getting up the meeting summary on
http://opendefinition.org/ news page (http://opendefinition.org/update/)
would be good as we can then see the overview and summary of actions (happy
to help draft this in markdown form in the gdoc!)

Rufus

On 18 June 2013 06:15, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:

> 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
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
*

Rufus Pollock

Founder and Co-Director | skype: rufuspollock |
@rufuspollock<https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>

The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>

Empowering through Open Knowledge
http://okfn.org/ | @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | OKF on
Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>|
Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |  Newsletter<http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>

*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130618/4d88f44d/attachment-0001.html>