[od-discuss] German Data license 2.0

Fri Aug 29 07:25:46 UTC 2014

Hi all,

from my understanding the “no liability” provision was removed as a legal opinion suggested that there was no liability anyway so that statement was dispensable.

I will try to get the lawyer[1] who commissioned the legal part of the study[2] commissioned by the German Government on the subject to comment on this.

All best
Daniel

1.Sönke E. Schulz from Lorenz-von-Stein-Institut für Verwaltungswissenschaften der Christian-Albrecht-Universität zu Kiel 
2. http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/OED_Verwaltung/ModerneVerwaltung/opengovernment.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

--
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 28.08.2014, at 22:48, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:

> Herb
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> My only concern is that there may be something in German public law that limits the licence in some way.  For instance I am struck by the absence of a “no liability” provision, and wondered whether there was a general provision in German public law that prohibits private actors claiming damages for acts or omissions of the State.
>  
> Regards
>  
> Andrew
>  
> From: od-discuss [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Herb Lainchbury
> Sent: 28 August 2014 21:31
> To: Mike Linksvayer
> Cc: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [od-discuss] German Data license 2.0
>  
> I have reviewed both the Data License Germany Zero 2.0 and the Data License Germany Attribution 2.0.
>  
> I have also reviewed all of the comments in this thread and believe all questions pertaining to conformance have been adequately addressed.
>  
> Daniel has also provided answers to the approval process questions, which are also this thread.
>  
> If anyone knows of any outstanding questions or concerns please indicate what they are as soon as possible.
>  
> Thanks,
> Herb
>  
> 
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Daniel Dietrich <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org> wrote:
> Hi Baden, all,
> 
> On 24.07.2014, at 07:02, Baden Appleyard <b.appleyard at ausgoal.gov.au> wrote:
> 
> > no questions… other than wondering what the reasons might have been for the German Government not considering open licences already published and in use?
> 
> we have talked extensively with them why creating a new national license is not the best idea and why they should consider using well established open licenses instead (issues around license interoperability, license proliferation, etc).
> 
> The sad true is that is seams they don’t have any other argument than that, they think that a national license has a bigger chance to be widely accepted by government bodies here in Germany. So ist more a psychological issue rather than any other…
>  
> Fair enough. This brings to mind another question: why a data-only national license? OGL UK is not data only. Will German government adopt these two new licenses for data, and CC0/CC-BY for other PSI, or come up with yet more licenses?
>  
> Regarding the decision to have a license based in German “public law” rather than “civil law“ was one that I never really got either. My view on this is that it brings additional potential for interoperability issues with other licenses that are based on “civil law”. We have raised this concern also to the Government but with no success.
> 
>  
> I'm guessing that the distinction here is between civil (between private parties) and public (eg administrative, regulatory) law, but these new licenses look like the former to me: is there anything about them (apart from branding) that would render useless as public licenses, by anyone? Now surely there ought be public law rendering all PSI not subject to copyright and database restrictions. ;-)
>  
> If people are interested to discuss this issue we might ask Dr. Helene Groß to answer to this specifically or to organize a hangout we’re we she could explain…?
>  
> I'd be happy to join one, noting that these questions probably have no impact on whether the proposed licenses are open, but I think still worthwhile for this group to understand on assumption we're still in very early days of government license proliferation, and they'll come up again.
>  
> All the best
> Daniel
> 
> 
> > ________________
> > Baden M Appleyard
> > National Programme Director
> > Australian Governments' Open Access and Licensing Framework (AusGOAL)
> > Mobile: +61(0)459 824 061
> > Linkedin: http://au.linkedin.com/in/badenappleyard
> >
> > AusGOAL
> > Visit our Website | Like and Share us on Facebook | Join our LinkedIn Group | Follow Us on Twitter: @AusGOAL | +1 on Google Plus
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> > On 07/22/2014 12:57 PM, Daniel Dietrich wrote:
> > > Hi Mike, all,
> > >
> > > On 07.07.2014, at 23:55, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> c) It'd be good to get brief answers to the questions posed inhttps://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-approval-process.markdown#submitting-the-license
> > >>
> > > Dr Helene Groß from German Ministry of the Interior just send me her answers to the questions posted on Github. I hope this is helpful.
> > >
> > > Also: whats the process to find decision whether or not the German Data license 2.0 is in compliance with the Open Definition?
> >
> > I believe the chair (Herb) will issue a call for approval votes when it
> > seems those participating in the discussion have their questions addressed.
> >
> > I'm fine with the answers below but would still very much like to have
> > others ask or indicate no questions, given that the form of these
> > licenses is substantially different from those already approved.
> >
> > I suspect these licenses' brevity is just fine, including 0 not claiming
> > to dedicate to the public domain, instead skipping directly to an
> > unconditional license. I like these licenses but again want to be sure
> > others have looked.
> >
> > One small comment on the answers inline.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > > All best
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Is civil-law-based what is intended here? How would the data licence
> > Germany be categorized then? Apologies for my ignorance!
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> --
>  
> Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
> 250.704.6154
> http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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