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

[Mike Linksvayer]

I think Herb and I have effectively +1'd the current version, and
nobody objected, which is enough, barring any last minute objections.

I think you should go ahead and send on behalf of the AC. cc me and/or
the list, whatever feels most appropriate.

Mike

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Daniel Dietrich
<daniel.dietrich at okfn.org> wrote:
> Thanks, Herb and all. So is this ready to be send off? And: who would be best sending it? I might be the natural candidate, but it might look more official if Mike or someone from the SC would send it.
>
> Daniel
>
> On 19 Mar 2013, at 16:51, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>> I have had a look at the pad and it looks good to me (other than it's in a pad and not in an email with appropriate formatting).  I can't really see anything to add.  Do you need more feedback on something specific?
>> Herb
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Daniel Dietrich <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> 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
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Herb Lainchbury
>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>