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

Fri Sep 13 09:12:57 UTC 2013

Just want to say thanks for the quick and excellent reply!

Kind regards

Rikard

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> 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

-- 
Rikard Fröberg, Rådgivare offentlig sektor
Morus konsult AB | http://morus.se | rikard at morus.se
0700 - 90 69 64  | 031 385 88 93