[od-discuss] Göteborg city's open data license

Wed Sep 11 18:42:02 UTC 2013

re http://gbgdata.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/avtal-goopen-1-3-0-copy-eng.pdf

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Rikard Fröberg <rikard at morus.se> wrote:
> Does it, in your opinion, comply with the Open Definition?

No.

> The license text is short and concise, four pages briefly worded.
>
> There are some passages that caught my attention:
>
> "[...]you must also:
> [...]
> * Make sure that you don’t mislead or discredit the Data or it’s sources.

Do not mislead is problematic at best, do not discredit is clearly
non-open, anti-free-speech. The data may well be false, the provider
corrupt, each richly deserving of discrediting, not credulity mandated
by license.

> These conditions are important for licensing, and if you break them,
> your right to continued
> access to services as well as collection of both new and archived data
> under this Agreement
> immediately terminates. You will be able to continue using data
> already retrieved.
> The Data Provider has the right to deny You, and your services,
> continued Collection of the
> Data both new and archived."

I don't think this is particularly problematic as a termination
clause, but there may be details I'm missing. It reads a bit like part
of a ToS in addition to a data license, which is always mildly
confusing.

There's another problem:
> Comply with the Data suppliers demands regarding registration and collection
> of data. The requirements may include registration, reduction of capacity in
> the collection of data and other in order to ensure functionality. The
> requirements may not be contradictory to this agreement.

This seems rather open-ended, probably includes non-open demands, and
might be another instance of confusing ToS-like language. Even if
there were no other problems I suspect this license would only be open
if not accompanied by any additional demands/requirements, ie this
clause not used.

> I'd appreciate any comments and thoughts. The reason I'm asking is
> that questions on which license to pick for publishing data is often
> discussed, as is the definition of what constitutes open data, and
> what does not, here in Sweden. There are two strategies for licenses
> we've seen in Sweden. One: Create your own license. Two: Use an
> international and accepted standard license (e.g. a CC license) - but
> which one to pick and for what reason is not yet a de facto standard
> here, although there are some guidelines and recommendations
> available.
>
> You opinions on this instance of a homemade license would be greatly
> helpful and valuable in this discussion.
>
> Thanks in advance and,
>
> Kind regards

Good luck!

Mike