[od-discuss] The Proliferation of Open Government Licences

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> [OFF-LIST to save inboxes] would it be worth cross-posting on
> opendefinition.org?

No, but a roundup might be good. Here's a draft (links missing from
second half). Re-adding the list for feedback.

#PSI license proliferation & the Open Definition

License proliferation increases costs for publishers and users (more
licenses to understand, evaluate, and comply with) and fractures the
commons through incompatibility and non-open terms. The Open
Definition Advisory Council and others have noted a surge in
jurisdiction, sub-jurisdiction, and sector specific licenses intended
for government data, or more generally, Public Sector Information
(PSI).

Read posts by AC members [Leigh
Dodds](http://theodi.org/blog/the-proliferation-of-open-government-licences)
and [Mike Linksvayer](http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2013/11/24/ugl/),
and highlighting the same issues in response to a European Commission
consultation on PSI, from the [Communia
Association](http://www.communia-association.org/2013/11/25/responding-to-the-european-commission-consultation-on-psi-minimizing-restrictions-maximizes-re-use/)
and [Creative Commons](https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40741).

A few themes you'll notice across those posts:

* The harm of license proliferation
* Public domain as the ideal policy for PSI
* Open Definition compliance as a harm reduction strategy, where
public domain is not the default and new licenses are created

The last has been very much on the minds of AC members, and has
informed our feedback on new PSI licenses in development (the OGL UK
2.0 is a notable success) and the approval process for new PSI
licenses developed without our feedback.

It is also informing the development of Open Definition 2.0, which
will not be a substantive change -- Open will still be best summed up
as "anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only,
at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike." But it
is an opportunity to make the definition easier to read, and either
through recommendations embedded in the definition, or stressed
further in the approval process -- discourage license proliferation
and encourage whatever new license are developed to be maximally open
and compatible with existing licenses.

If you'd like to help give feedback to license proposals, vet licenses
submitted for conformance, and help write OD 2.0 and improve our
process, please join od-discuss. If your government is developing a
bespoke license, tell them to *please* consult with the OD AC!




> On 25 November 2013 03:36, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Leigh Dodds <leigh at ldodds.com> wrote:
>> > FYI, I wrote up some thoughts on proliferation of open government
>> > licences:
>> >
>> > http://theodi.org/blog/the-proliferation-of-open-government-licences
>>
>> Good post, and saved me some paragraphs. I'd been meaning to write
>> something on this, inspired largely by OD-related traffic, but less
>> constrained...
>>
>> http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2013/11/24/ugl/
>>
>> Mike
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Executive Director | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
>
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>
> Empowering through Open Knowledge
>
> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn | OKF on Facebook |  Blog  |  Newsletter