[od-discuss] Open Definition Telecon 15:00 UTC Thursday 2014-08-14

Thu Aug 21 18:49:46 UTC 2014

Hi Rufus, all,

I did send all information required before:

Here are the DRAFT German open data license v2.0 

Data licence Germany - Zero - Version 2.0
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RqQqkCt7t9yO5YMrRsXEMnoS5cCDzUtbDf-tN0Upq1A/edit#

Data license Germany - attribution - Version 2.0
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z8aKuEoyPw_T_LZNBTH1O_ZSJCta9N1YgWSiX5zXzw4/edit#

and here are the answers to the questions as provided by the Federal German Ministry of the Interior (BMI):

1. State the rationale for the new license.
The “data licence Germany” focusses on public sector data which is provided under German public law. Without the “data licence Germany”, German administration would not have a proper way to define Open-Definition-compatible terms of use for their data, as it is still controversial discussed if civil-law-based licences like Creative Commons may be used by the federal administration and especially for data.

2. Is the license specific to an organization/place/jurisdiction? We generally frown on such licenses (see proliferation below), only making politically expedient exceptions (eg, the organization is a national government; and these are categorized as “non-reusable).
cf. answer 1:  The “data licence Germany” is developed especially for public sector data in Germany (like the the Canadian or British Open Government Licences). A categorization as “non-reusable” is acceptable for us.

3. Compare and contrast to any existing similar approved as OD-conformant licenses.
The “Data licence Germany” is available in two variations: The “Data licence Germany - Attribution” demands an indication of the data source (like CC-by). The “Data licence Germany - Zero” doesn’t impose any restrictions (like CC-Zero). As stated in answer 1, both version were developed to be comparable to Creative Commons, but within the restrictions of German public law.

4. What benefit does the new license bring over already approved OD-conformant licenses which would outweigh the costs of license proliferation?
cf. answers 1 and 3.

5. Is the license compatible with existing OD-conformant licenses? By alignment (permissions identical or a superset of existing license, conditions identical or a subset) and/or express permission to license the original and/or adaptations of the licensed work under an existing license?
Yes. Both variations of the licence do not define any constraints regarding the reuse of data under the “Data licence Germany” – with the exception of attributing the author in case of the “Date licence Germany – Attribution” .

6. Provide a link to any public drafting process (e.g., conducted on a public communication forum of some sort; multiple drafts presented to that forum) for the license.
The licence was discussed and drafted in an (off-line) working group, led by the Federal Ministry of the Interior and with members from federal states as well as from civil society organisations like Wikimedia and OKF. Internet-based platforms were not used in this process, so that a link cannot be provided.

Please note that I was asked by the BMI to solicit the advisory board for comments on the licenses (which Mike, Herb and Andrew already did) and to submit the license for approval as an open license on compliance with the OD.

It would be really great to get this moving forward. What else is needed to finalize the approval process? 

Thanks a lot!

All the best
Daniel

--
Daniel Dietrich, co-founder & chairman
Open Knowledge Foundation Germany
www.okfn.de | info at okfn.de | @okfde 
Office: +49 30 57703666 0 | Fax: - 9
Mobile: +49 176 32768530 

Singerstr. 109, 10179 Berlin
http://goo.gl/maps/J4n0U

Empowering people through open knowledge!
Support us: http://okfn.de/support/

On 18.08.2014, at 11:10, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
> 
> We didn't get to discuss that (I don't think it was agenda'd in the end). Can we get a text of it into the repo (if not there already - plus perhaps a translation if needed)  and then start a thread to discuss?
> 
> Rufus
> 
> 
> On 18 August 2014 08:57, Daniel Dietrich <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org> wrote:
> Hi Mike, all,
> 
> I am sorry I could not make it to the call. Did you by any chance discuss the German Data License and its compliance with OD?
> 
> All best
> Daniel
> 
> --
> Daniel Dietrich, co-founder & chairman
> Open Knowledge Foundation Germany
> www.okfn.de | info at okfn.de | @okfde
> Office: +49 30 57703666 0 | Fax: - 9
> Mobile: +49 176 32768530
> 
> On 15.08.2014, at 01:43, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> 
> > As discussed at meeting, I have done another iteration on approval
> > process and resulting license page.
> >
> > http://beta.opendefinition.org/licenses/process/
> > http://beta.opendefinition.org/licenses/
> >
> > Those pages are unstyled, just look at the content for now. If you
> > wish to see commits, they're on gh-pages branch.
> >
> > Mike
> > _______________________________________________
> > od-discuss mailing list
> > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rufus Pollock
> Founder and President  |  skype: rufuspollock  |  @rufuspollock
> Open Knowledge - see how data can change the world
> http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |  Open Knowledge on Facebook  |  Blog
> 
> The Open Knowledge Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation.  It is incorporated in England & Wales as a company limited by guarantee, with company number 05133759.  VAT Registration № GB 984404989. Registered office address: Open Knowledge Foundation, St John’s Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WS, UK.  