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

Fri Aug 22 09:24:16 UTC 2014

I've opened an issue with License Approval label:
https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/49

@Daniel: would it be possible for you to highlight either here or in the
issue the major differences of the license compared to other licenses and
your view on the strengths and weaknesses?

Rufus

On 21 August 2014 19:49, Daniel Dietrich <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
>

-- 

*Rufus PollockFounder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
<https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/> - see
how data can change the world**http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/> | @okfn
<http://twitter.com/OKFN> | Open Knowledge on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>*

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140822/d6911038/attachment-0003.html>