[od-discuss] OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time

[Herb Lainchbury]

+1 from me for conformance on OGL Canada v2.0.


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>wrote:

> Thanks Mark.
>
> All note there's also a brief report on feedback at
> http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-consultation-report
>
> I'll start by saying despite outstanding quibbles, I'm +1 on conformance.
> We'll use the standard procedure at
> http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ ie it'll take at least two
> weeks for a final decision.
>
> AC and other list members, even if you agree the issues below aren't
> conformance blockers, further discussion of them is welcome, probably
> pertinent for future license developments.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Levene, Mark <Mark.Levene at tbs-sct.gc.ca>wrote:
>
>> Hi,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Yes, we launched our new http://data.gc.ca portal last week and that’s
>> the version that can be found here:
>> http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada (available in
>> French, as well:
>> http://data.gc.ca/fra/licence-du-gouvernement-ouvert-canada) .****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> We hope you find it conformant. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --Mark****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* mlinksva at gmail.com [mailto:mlinksva at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike
>> Linksvayer
>> *Sent:* June-26-13 4:30 PM
>> *To:* Kent Mewhort
>> *Cc:* Herb Lainchbury; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org; Levene, Mark
>> *Subject:* Re: [od-discuss] Comparison of UK, Canada and Alberta Licences
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> OGL-Canada v2.0 is attached to
>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000425.html
>>
>> wdiff of UK and Canada 2.0 at
>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000466.html
>>
>> Following up here because Kent's comments below the substantive ones. I
>> agree with Kent's comments, though I'm not sure any rise to the level of
>> non-conformance. I'd add that I'm not thrilled with
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> This licence does not grant you any right to use: ... Information subject
>> to other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade-marks and
>> official marks.****
>>
>>
>> As remarked previously regarding similar licenses, I wonder if this
>> doesn't make it rather ambiguous whether one has any right to use the
>> information at all, given that "other intellectual property rights" is
>> pretty broad. This was fixed in UK OGL 2.0 as I mentioned in trying to
>> summarizes those changes:****
>>
>> * 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)****
>>
>> I'm guessing from Mark Levene's "the specific version that Canada will be
>> using when we launch our next-generation portal (coming very soon)" that
>> this is the final version, to be released very soon. If that's the case the
>> AC should vote on conformance, but would appreciation confirmation from
>> Mark (cc'd) as well as replies re issues raised by Kent (others, please add
>> yours).
>>
>> Mike****
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca> wrote:
>> ****
>>
>> 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> 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>
>> 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] *On Behalf Of *Herb Lainchbury
>> *Sent:* 18 June 2013 20:34
>> *To:* 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://twitter.com/herblainchbury ****
>>
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --
>> Herb Lainchbury
>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> _______________________________________________****
>>
>> 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****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --
>> Herb Lainchbury
>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>
>


-- 
Herb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130627/cff575b9/attachment-0001.html>