[od-discuss] OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time

Fri Jun 28 09:49:05 UTC 2013

I'm +1 on conformance. And great to see this in the repo -
https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/licenses/inreview/OGL-CA-2.0.md
(makes
it even easier to review!)

Rufus

On 27 June 2013 22:15, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:

> +1 from me too for conformance of OGL Canada 2.0
>
>
>
> On 27 Jun 2013, at 16:35, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
> wrote:
>
> +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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130628/4611149a/attachment-0001.html>