[od-discuss] OD Proliferation Policy

Wed Jun 19 13:55:25 UTC 2013

On 13-06-18 07:15 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> 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?
Perhaps:
(-) 3. State the rationale for the new license.
(+) 3. Think about license proliferation [link to another page with 
info]. Explain the rationale for the new licence.
State the rationale for the new license
State the rationale for the new license.
State the rationale for the new license.
> * Tweaking http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ to recategorize and
> recommend some licenses over others (beyond the easy old/deprecated
> distinction now made) -- any proposals?
My first stab would be:
  - Recommended
  - Not recommended
    - Superseded
    - Non-reusable
    - Specialized (for a narrow purpose / range of uses)

This would basically be a slight simplification of the OSI categories.  
Interestingly, it seems OSI chose to avoid Recommended / Not recommended 
so as to not tread into policy territory  -- from 
http://opensource.org/proliferation-report:

    Originally, the LP Committee started to divide the OSI approved
    licenses into "recommended," "non-recommended" and "other" tiers.
    The committee concluded, however, that any such normative
    characterization would properly be a matter for policy matter for
    the OSI Board to decide. Thus, we switched from the
    "recommended"/"non-recommended" terminology to a more descriptive
    terminology including the following categories:

      * Licenses that are popular and widely used or with strong communities
      * Special purpose licenses
      * Licenses that are redundant with more popular licenses
      * Non-reusable licenses
      * Other/Miscellaneous licenses

IMO, licensing very much is a policy matter, so I'm not necessarily 
recommended the same course -- but it's something to consider.

As for these two action items in general (submission policy & 
categorization), I think it's a great course of action to help address 
the problem.

Kent

>
>
> 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
>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130619/a13e2356/attachment-0001.html>