[od-discuss] German Data license 2.0

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Daniel Dietrich <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org>
wrote:

> Dear Mike, all,
>
> I have reported your feedback, questions back to Dr. Helene Groß form the
> Ministry of the Interior and she kindly asked me to reply on her behalf:


Thank you both!


> On 07.07.2014, at 23:55, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Daniel Dietrich <
> daniel.dietrich at okfn.org> wrote:
> > On 07.07.2014, at 19:44, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com>
> wrote:
> > > Are these the complete texts?!
> >
> > Yes, theses are the complete texts (very minimalistic indeed)
> >
> > I enjoy the brevity, and dropping NC/adding 0 a great thing.
> >
> > a) Does the brevity cause any required permissions to not be granted? I
> hope the answer is “no" but seems worth a closer look.
>
> In our opinion, the answer is (or at least should be) “no”. We hope that
> the advisory council  agrees on this.


I would guess so. :) I'm curious what other AC folk think. The substance of
the permission seems *really* brief: "Any use is permitted without
restrictions or conditions" and "Any use will be permitted provided it
fulfils the requirements [below]". Commercial or not and some specific uses
seem just explanatory. I think this extreme brevity is great, if it grants
adequate permissions. One way to consider this beyond mere OD compliance
(and one of the process questions) is in terms of compatibility with
CC0/PDDL and CC-BY/ODC-BY.


> > I looked back at our feedback
> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000383.html and it
> is good that they dropped " or the source note must be deleted if the
> entity keeping the data requires so".
> >
> > b) I'm not exactly sure what "source note" means, but that may be a
> translation issue. What does it mean?
>
> The german expression is “Quellenvermerk”. “Indication of source” might be
> a better translation. As section 2 of the licence states, this
> “Quellenvermerk” has to include the name of the author / provider of the
> dataset, the short name of the licence and the URI of the original dataset.
> I would be happy for any suggestions for a better wording!
>
> > Barring "source note" meaning something bizarre, it would seem to be
> open, similar to requirements in other licenses and now explicitly
> accounted for (under Integrity) in
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-dev.markdown
> >
> > c) It’d be good to get brief answers to the questions posed in
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-approval-process.markdown#submitting-the-license
>
> I will answers the linked questionnaire as soon as possible.
>
> In addition Dr. Groß suggested to change the wording of Article 2 from
>
> “(2) The user must ensure that the source note contains the following
> information:” to
>
> “The user must ensure that the following information is provided to
> indicate the source:” or
> “The user must ensure that the following information is provided as an
> indication of the source:”
>
> Do you think this would make the text clearer?
>

I think so, though leaving off everything after "provided" would be ever
more clear to me. Likewise the two subsequent mentions of source note could
just be cut off -- the licensee has to provide this info if the licensor
has, and has to indicate changes if any. But I'm probably missing some
common understanding of "indication of source" or “Quellenvermerk” that
actually makes the text easier to understand if I had that understanding.

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140711/8c0d5910/attachment-0003.html>