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

Sun Jun 23 08:21:48 UTC 2013

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130623/6aaea1e3/attachment-0001.html>