[od-discuss] Please review: 'Datenlizenz Deutschland' for OD compliance.

Andrew Stott andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com
Fri Mar 1 03:07:30 UTC 2013

It’s unclear to me what the precise meaning of the requirement is.


(1) is it saying (a) that all the actual changes must be documented (Herb’s
interpretation); or is it saying (b) that the attribution statement must be
different if the data is changed (for instance from “reproduces data from
Ministry” to “modified from data from Ministry”)?  The original German
refers to a “Veränderungshinweis” which Google translates as a “Change
Notice”, which could mean either a description of the changes or simply a
notice that changes had been made.


I recall seeing an Australian example [1] of CC-BY which required a
different attribution statement if that data had been changed.


(2) is it saying (a) that the licensor can later at its discretion instruct
the licensee to remove the attribution (Herb’s interpretation); or is it
saying (b) that the licensor can specify *in advance* that an attribution
should *never* be given if the data is changed?  


I agree with Herb that if the meaning is 1(a) and 2(a) then it is
non-conformant – and 1(a) would be burdensome and 2(a) would leave
indefinite uncertainty.  


However requiring simply a different fixed attribution text (as in
interpretation 1(b)), or no attribution at all (2(b)), if the data has been
changed would seem to me to be a conformant way of the licensor distancing
himself from modified data where there was reputational or moral liability







[1]  I think that this was some New South Wales transport data, but I cannot
find the link.



From: od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org
[mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Herb Lainchbury
Sent: 01 March 2013 01:58
To: Daniel Dietrich
Cc: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Subject: Re: [od-discuss] Please review: 'Datenlizenz Deutschland' for OD


I really like the simplicity of this license, but I don't think it conforms
to the definition.


As written, I think the statement "Changes, editing, new designs or other
amendments shall be marked with information in the source note about
relevant changes, or the source note must be deleted if the entity keeping
the data requires so." imposes two requirements on the user beyond
attribution and share-alike.


1. if you publish the data in a modified form you have to document your
modifications in the attribution note

2. if you publish the data in a modified form and the publisher requires you
to remove the attribution note, you must remove it


So, I would say, it's non-conformant as written.  If they can somehow remove
that clause then I think would be a simple attribution license that





On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Daniel Dietrich <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org>

Dear all,

I think we have not followed this up properly:

Can the Advisory council of the Open Definition please review the 2 licenses
used for the German federal government data portal [1], which was launched
last week.

The original license text is here:

"Datenlizenz Deutschland – Namensnennung – Version 1.0"

essentially an attribution license and:

"Datenlizenz Deutschland – Namensnennung – nicht kommerziell – Version 1.0"

essentially an attribution non-commercial license.

The english translation is here for you to review and comment:


It would be really great if we could evaluate them soon and inform the
German Government about OD compliance. Looking fwd hearing your opinions.

Kind regards

1. https://www.govdata.de/

On 22 Jan 2013, at 10:36, Daniel Dietrich <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
> here are the actual license texts for the (soon be launched) open
government data platform in Germany.
> There will be two licenses: a attribution-like and a
attribution-non-commercial-like - the attribution being the default. Please
note that this is the final version of the draft I shared with you before.
> I have pasted into a GDoc so we can comment on it:
> Now Dr. Gross from the German ministry of the interior responsible for the
licenses is asking the OD Advisory Council for evaluation of the licenses
for its compliance with the open definition.
> Of course they understand that the non-commercial version is not an open
license so we can focus on the attribution version.
> I would very much appreciate if you all could have a look, please. Thanks.
Maybe we could arrange a call on this in the next weeks?
> All the best
> Daniel
> 1.
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: <MariaHelene.Gross at bmi.bund.de>
>> Subject: Datenlizenz Deutschland
>> Date: 22 January 2013 09:09:22 CET
>> To: <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org>
>> Cc: <JanOle.Beyer at bmi.bund.de>
>> Lieber Herr Dietrich,
>> anliegend übersende ich Ihnen die englische Fassung der Datenlizenzen
>> Deutschland mit der Bitte, sie an das Advisory Board zur Prüfung
>> weiterzuleiten.
>> Ich gehe davon aus, dass die "Datenlizenz Deutschland Namensnennung" eine
>> offene Lizenz ist, die "Datenlizenz Deutschland Namensnennung nicht
>> kommerziell" dagegen nicht.
>> Vielen Dank für Ihre Unterstützung,
>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>> Dr. Helene Groß
>> ___________________________
>> Bundesministerium des Innern
>> Referat O 1
>> Telefon: 030/ 18  681-2324
>> www.bmi.bund.de
>> www.verwaltung-innovativ.de
>> www.daten-deutschland.de

> <130121_Data_Licence_Germany.docx>
> --
> Daniel Dietrich
> Open Data evangelist; Open Knowledge Foundation
> Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
> www.okfn.org - www.opendefinition.org
> www.ddie.me
> twitter.com/ddie
> +49 176 327 685 30 <tel:%2B49%20176%20327%20685%2030> 
> +49 30 57703666 0 <tel:%2B49%2030%2057703666%200> 

od-discuss mailing list
od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss


Herb Lainchbury
Dynamic Solutions Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130301/aa371a33/attachment.html>

More information about the od-discuss mailing list