[od-discuss] OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time

Fri Jun 28 14:07:46 UTC 2013

As with OGL-UK, +1 on compliance with the OD as currently drafted;
plus a note that we should adjust the OD to allow us to reject
misguided jurisdiction/government-specific licenses like this one in
the future, since they raise transaction costs without actually
benefiting either the licensor or licensee.

Luis

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> 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
>
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>
> Empowering through Open Knowledge
>
> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn | OKF on Facebook |  Blog  |  Newsletter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>