[od-discuss] OD conformant proposal: Open Government Licence v2.0 []

Tue Jun 25 16:10:43 UTC 2013

Luis

Jo Ellis will correct me if I am wrong, but on the second point below the
Licensor and the Information Provider could be different or the same bodies
in the UK context:

* for Crown Copyright material (broadly material from central government
bodies) the Information Provider would be the Ministry or other public body
publishing the material, but the Licensor would be the Controller of Her
Majesty's Stationery Office.  Generally individual public bodies do not have
delegated authority to licence Crown Copyright material (there are some
exceptions); this has been helpful to the Open Data cause because, after
consultation with Information Providers collectively, the National Archives
in their "Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office" role can issue the
OGL and it automatically applies to general Crown Copyright material.

* for non-Crown Copyright material (eg from local councils) the UK policy is
to encourage the adoption of  standard licences, including the UK-OGL, but
in such cases the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office is not
involved.  

I think that the drafting is intended to cover both these cases.  

Regards

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: luis.villa at gmail.com [mailto:luis.villa at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Luis
Villa
Sent: 22 June 2013 23:06
To: Andrew Stott
Cc: Mike Linksvayer; Ellis, Jo; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Subject: Re: [od-discuss] OD conformant proposal: Open Government Licence
v2.0 []

+1 for OSD-compliance.

However, several notes:

- in light of the proposed changes to the definition that have been
discussed here) it would be nice to either remove the things that are
UK-specific, or make them all examples. e.g.:

"identity documents such as the British Passport." is fine; but "(including
the Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland)" should really also
be "such as"; and "the Royal Arms" should be generalized into something less
specific to the UK, with the Royal Arms listed merely as an example.

- Not really sure what to do with the definition of Licensor. I'm not an
expert in UK law, but isn't "the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery
Office" an "Information Provider which has the authority to offer
Information under the terms of this licence", making the second part of the
clause redundant?

- re "These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0" - I would not say that until 4.0 is actually final.
(Really, most of this section probably shouldn't be in the license, but
rather in a separate document - but maybe it is and the .docx I received is
not clear when opened in LibreOffice?)

- re "This means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under
either of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the
OGL when you comply with the other licence." - Does this license allow
adaptation under another license? I see no indication of that elsewhere in
the license, and it would not be the default situation under Berne, which is
potentially quite confusing.

HTH-
Luis

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com>
wrote:
> Mike
>
>
>
> Thanks for this analysis
>
>
>
> +1 from me on approval of conformance with the Open Definition
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Andrew Stott
>
>
>
> From: od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org 
> [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Mike 
> Linksvayer
> Sent: 22 June 2013 21:37
> To: Ellis, Jo
> Cc: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>
>
> Subject: Re: [od-discuss] OD conformant proposal: Open Government 
> Licence
> v2.0 []
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Ellis, Jo 
> <Jo.Ellis at nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
>
> Further to our discussion on 14 June, here is the final version of the 
> Open Government Licence v2.0 for formal approval.  We plan to launch 
> on 28 June and, although I appreciate time is tight, it would be great 
> if we could mention the OD compliance when we launch.
>
>
> I don't see any substantive changes between the draft you sent 
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000424.html and 
> this final version -- wdiff of the two at the end of this mail.
>
> Agree it would be great to mention OD compliance at launch. I think 
> given extensive discussion of this, including on last telecon, we can 
> substitute a greater number (say at least half, which would be 8) of 
> AC members actively
> +1'ing for the two week consensus period in
> http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ -- unless any AC member
objects.
> :)
>
> The attachment to previously linked
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000424.html 
> includes a redline of all substantive changes from UK OGL 1.0; here's my
summary:
>
> * Version changed from 1.0 to 2.0
> * Following problematic conditions *removed* (these were core of 
> previous discussion on UK OGL 1.0):
>
> ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any 
> official status or that the Information Provider endorses you or your 
> use of the Information; ensure that you do not mislead others or 
> misrepresent the Information or its source; ensure that your use of 
> the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the 
> Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.
>
> * In exemptions, "Information subject to" removed from clause ending 
> with "other intellectual property rights, including patents, 
> trademarks, and design rights" (clarifying that these other rights 
> aren't licensed rather than no permission granted if other rights 
> pertinent, which makes it hard to tell when one has permission at all)
>
> * Addition of non-endorsement clause (not granting a right of 
> endorsement, substituting for the condition above; a subtle but big 
> improvement)
>
> * Clearer statement of donor compatibility with CC-BY (and specifying 
> 4.0, presumably because it will explicitly cover database rights) and
ODC-BY.
>
> These are all good changes, and make me +1 on approval of conformance 
> with the Open Definition.
>
> For the record, my ideal OGL (apart from the obvious ideal ideal, that 
> all PSI be free of copyright and related restrictions, period) would 
> (a) not or more finely exempt personal data -- see the third numbered 
> item in 
> http://opendefinition.org/2013/01/31/ogl-canada-proposal-feedback/ 
> courtesy Andrew Stott -- and (b) would not exempt patents given there 
> seems to be some potential for use with software, see
> https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/15
>
> But (a) is a hard issue and I don't think is a linchpin for OD 
> [non-]compliance, and (b) is an issue for the Open Source Initiative, 
> should anyone actually use the UK OGL 2.0 for software and claim it is 
> approved for open source software.
>
> Additional +1's or dissent? I will ping all AC members privately for a 
> hopefully quick response.
>
> Mike
>
> ...
>
> You are encouraged to use and re-use the Information that is available 
> under this licence freely and flexibly, with only a few conditions.
>
>
>
> Using Information under this licence
>
>
>
> Use of copyright and database right material expressly made available 
> under this licence (the 'Information') indicates your acceptance of 
> the terms and conditions below.
>
>
>
> The Licensor grants you a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, 
> non-exclusive licence to use the Information subject to the conditions
below.
>
>
>
> This licence does not affect your freedom under fair dealing or fair 
> use or any other copyright or database right exceptions and limitations.
>
>
>
> You are free to:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> adapt the Information;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> exploit the Information commercially, for example, by combining it 
> with other Information, or by including it in your own product or
application.
>
>
>
> You must (where you do any of the above):
>
>
>
>
>
> acknowledge the source of the Information by including any attribution 
> statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where 
> possible, provide a link to this licence;
>
>
>
> 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 in your product 
> or application, you may use the following:
>
>
>
> Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government 
> Licence v2.0.
>
>
>
> These are important conditions of this licence and if you fail to 
> comply with them the rights granted to you under this licence, or any 
> similar licence granted by the Licensor, will end automatically.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Exemptions
>
>
>
> This licence does not [-cover the use of:-] {+cover:+}
>
>
>
> personal data in the Information;
>
> Information that has neither been published nor disclosed under 
> information access legislation (including the Freedom of Information 
> Acts for the UK and
> Scotland) by or with the consent of the Information Provider;
>
> departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal 
> Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset;
>
> military insignia;
>
> third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to 
> license;
>
> other intellectual property rights, including patents, [-trademarks,-] 
> {+trade marks,+} and design rights; and
>
> identity documents such as the British Passport.
>
>
>
> Non-endorsement
>
>
>
> This licence does not grant you any right to use the Information in a 
> way that suggests any official status or that the Information Provider 
> endorses you or your use of the Information.
>
>
>
> No warranty
>
>
>
> The Information is licensed 'as is' and the Information Provider 
> excludes all representations, warranties, obligations and liabilities 
> in relation to the Information to the maximum extent permitted by law.
>
>
>
> The Information Provider is not liable for any errors or omissions in 
> the Information and shall not be liable for any loss, injury or damage 
> of any kind caused by its use. The Information Provider does not 
> guarantee the continued supply of the Information.
>
>
>
> Governing Law
>
>
>
> This licence is governed by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the 
> Information Provider has its principal place of business, unless 
> otherwise specified by the Information Provider.
>
>
>
> Definitions
>
>
>
> In this licence, the terms below have the following meanings:
>
>
>
> 'Information' means information protected by copyright or by database 
> right (for example, literary and artistic works, content, data and 
> source code) offered for use under the terms of this licence.
>
> 'Information Provider' means the person or organisation providing the 
> Information under this licence.
>
> 'Licensor' means any Information Provider which has the authority to 
> offer Information under the terms of this licence or the Controller of 
> Her Majesty's Stationery Office, who has the authority to offer 
> Information subject to Crown copyright and Crown database rights and 
> Information subject to copyright and database right that has been 
> assigned to or acquired by the Crown, under the terms of this licence.
>
> 'Use' [-as a verb,-] means doing any act which is restricted by 
> copyright or database right, whether in the original medium or in any 
> other medium, and includes without limitation distributing, copying, 
> adapting, modifying as may be technically necessary to use it in a
different mode or format.
>
> 'You' means the natural or legal person, or body of persons corporate 
> or incorporate, acquiring rights under this licence.
>
>
>
> About the Open Government Licence
>
>
>
> The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) has developed 
> this licence as a tool to enable Information Providers in the public 
> sector to license the use and re-use of their Information under a common
open licence.
> The Controller invites public sector bodies owning their own copyright 
> and database rights to permit the use of their Information under this
licence.
>
>
>
> The Controller of HMSO has authority to license Information subject to 
> copyright and database right owned by the Crown. The extent of the 
> Controller's offer to license this Information under the terms of this 
> licence is set out on The National Archives website [link].
>
>
>
> This is version 2.0 of the Open Government Licence. The Controller of 
> HMSO may, from time to time, issue new versions of the Open Government
Licence.
> [-However,-]  {+If+} you [-may continue to use-] {+are already using+} 
> Information [-licensed-] under [-this-] {+a previous+} version 
> [-should you wish-] {+of the Open Government Licence, the terms of 
> that licence will
> continue+} to [-do so.-] {+apply.+}
>
>
>
>
>
> These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution 
> License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons [-Attributions-] {+Attribution+} 
> License, both of which license copyright and database rights.  This 
> means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under either 
> of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL 
> when you comply with the other licence.
>
>
>
> Further context, best practice and guidance can be found in the UK 
> Government Licensing Framework section on The National Archives 
> website [link].
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>