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

Daniel Dietrich daniel.dietrich at okfn.org
Mon Mar 18 19:31:15 UTC 2013

Thanks Mike,

I agree we should focus on the main point and perhaps skip points 1-3 from my initial draft or move them to addendum.

I would really like to see others comments on this, so we might be able to send this of by the end of this week.


On 18 Mar 2013, at 19:01, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:

> Thanks for driving this forward Daniel!
> I made some substantial edits, reflecting my opinion that the problem
> is clarity, but not that any of the likely readings make it non-Open.
> I also elided some points that might be re best practices, but IMO it
> isn't entirely clear what the best practice in each case is, and they
> don't have any bearing on conformance. Coped below with some of
> Daniel's text and my comments. I think if we keep these in any form
> they should be in a postscript/addendum and clearly demarcated as not
> bearing on conformance:
> 1. it doesn't explicitly make sure how to reference the actual data
> holder. (Meaning how to "mention the source"? I'm not sure this is a
> problem. Overspecification can be more of a problem than
> underpecification of attribution.)
> 2. it doesn't explicitly make sure how to reference the license text
> itself. (This is a minor point, but could be more explicit, maybe
> provide canonical URI for refernecing license? This has nothing to do
> with being conformant or not.)
> 3. it doesn't explicitly make sure that it will be compatible with all
> further versions of the license. (Why should it? It has no copyleft
> aspect.) << this means that content that is licensed withv1.0 can
> easily be upgrated to v1.1 ... Yes I know there's a case for such, but
> it is an edge case unsupported by all(?) permissive licenses to date;
> I don't know why they should.
> Tell me I'm wrong!
> Mike
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Daniel Dietrich
> <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> thanks to all for your comments.
>> I would like to consolidate this into a short replay to the people in charge at the Ministry of the Interior as they requested the Advisory council to check the license for compliance with the OD.
>> I have booted this pad to draft this answer:
>> http://opendefinition.okfnpad.org/DE-OGD-license
>> Please help me to get this done, so we can send it out asap. Thanks!
>> Kind regards
>> Daniel
>> On 3 Mar 2013, at 00:21, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Andrew Stott
>>> <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>> involved.
>>> I'm not sure what the clause means either, but my best guess is a weak
>>> version of 1(a) together with 2(b) (referring to Andrew's descriptions
>>> above, not license sections). By weak, I mean that it doesn't require
>>> a machine-readable version of changes. It would be great if the
>>> language were more explicit, or if it already is, a German speaker
>>> could explain.
>>> But I'm not sure any of above readings would make the proposed
>>> attribution license non-Open. 2(a) is problematic, but then all
>>> previously-deemed-Open CC BY and BY-SA licenses have that. As they do
>>> require a weak version of 1(a). And previously-deemed-Open licenses
>>> includes a strong version of 1(a), in particular ODbL does, as an
>>> alternative to full source distribution (which may or may not be less
>>> onerous depending on circumstances; OTOH maybe as an alternative it is
>>> OK, but without full source option it is not).
>>> Though I'm not certain above readings would make proposed license
>>> non-Open, I'd recommend both making conditions more clear and ensuring
>>> they are minimal -- this presumably aims to be a permissive
>>> attribution-only license; its effectiveness as such will be greatly
>>> limited by difficult to understand and possibly understood as onerous
>>> conditions.
>>> Mike

More information about the od-discuss mailing list