[od-discuss] German Data license 2.0

[Baden Appleyard]

no questions... other than wondering what the reasons might have been for
the German Government not considering open licences already published and
in use?


________________
*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 <http://www.ausgoal.gov.au> | Like and Share us on
Facebook <http://goo.gl/lQXKsI> | Join our LinkedIn Group
<http://linkd.in/oq5L3u> | Follow Us on Twitter: @AusGOAL
<https://twitter.com/#!/AusGOAL> | +1 on Google Plus <http://goo.gl/E8k03j>


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 in
> https://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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140724/9e6c2105/attachment-0003.html>