[od-discuss] GGCLB_RE [d-discuss] 2_GGC LB to OKFN advisory council: Conformance check of licence "GeoLicence V1.2.1-Open (mail resent in reduced size)

Mon Mar 16 18:51:10 UTC 2015

Thank you for the updated answers Lars.

In section 10 of the license it reads: "German law applies to this licence."

To me, that is sufficient to call it jurisdiction specific.  The fact that
it is jurisdiction specific doesn't automatically mean that it's not open,
it's just that we would want to note that it is jurisdiction specific.

You said: "Until today there is no standard for licensing in the geodata
world"
Are you saying that there is something special about geodata?  It is not
clear to me why it requires it's own kind of license.

" Licensing of products which cost a fee"
To me, It sounds like you are suggesting that the geolicense will enable
licencing of data for a fee.  Is that the case?  Or does that only apply to
the non-open version?

There is more than one license on the page provided.  One is clearly marked
as non-open so, are we talking about just this one license then?  The one
marked "open"?

http://www.geolizenz.org/modules/geolizenz/docs/1.2.1/Explanations_GeoLicenceV1.2.1_Open_082213_EN.pdf

Thanks,
Herb

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Behrens, Lars <
Lars.Behrens at geobusiness.org> wrote:

>  Dear Herb/all,
>
>
>
> thanks for your valid questions. Indeed the answers are already older, so
> I should clarify this:
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. The licence does not refer and built solely upon German law, it is just
> in line with German law (e.g. warranty clause) and as such allows the usage
> of public authorities who have to be compliant to German law. See also
> answer under 4.
>
>
>
> 4. Until today there is no standard for licensing in the geodata world.
> Approved OD-conformant licences are not widely used within the geodata
> world due to different reasons, to name some:
>
>
>
> a)    Licensing of products which cost a fee
>
> b)    Need of regulation of service levels, data protection issues and
> need of user registration
>
> c)    non compliancy of warranty clauses with german law (see 3.)
>
> d)    licences not designed to fit the work to be licenced (geodata,
> maps, map content created by a multiple of users)
>
>
>
>
>
> The intention of the GeoLicence-Open in this context is not to replace the
> existing OD-conformant licences for open data products but offer a
> possibility for those providers who already use the set of non open
> GeoLicences to support the usage of products related to a) and b) topics
> and overcome the shortcomes of c) and d)
>
>
>
> Hope this helps. Let me know if you need more input on the other questions.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lars
>
> *Von:* herb.lainchbury at gmail.com [mailto:herb.lainchbury at gmail.com
> <herb.lainchbury at gmail.com>] *Im Auftrag von *Herb Lainchbury
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 28. Januar 2015 20:33
> *An:* Mike Linksvayer
> *Cc:* Behrens, Lars; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [od-discuss] 2_GGC LB to OKFN advisory council:
> Conformance check of licence "GeoLicence V1.2.1-Open (mail resent in
> reduced size)
>
>
>
> I have been reminded of this unresolved thread from about a year ago and
> would like to bring it back into the discussion.
>
>
>
> The answers to our preliminary questions are provided, though the
> questions are slightly different (older versions?).
>
>
>
> I have one comment out of the gate.  Question 2 says the license is not
> jurisdiction specific, yet the license refers specifically to German law.
> I would say that IS jurisdiction specific.
>
>
>
> I would like to more information for provided for Question 4, which reads:
> "What benefit does the new license bring over already approved
> OD-conformant licenses which would outweigh the costs of license
> proliferation <http://opensource.org/proliferation-report>?"
>
>
>
> The response provided does not refer to an already approved OD-conformant
> license.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Herb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
> wrote:
>
> (resending to list)
>
> On 12/03/2013 06:12 AM, Behrens, Lars wrote:
> > since I haven’t noticed any discussion or received a reply about this, I
> > was wondering what the current status of approval is?
>
> I don't expect to take a formal approval vote until next year, pending
> AC consensus on steps we're taking in a revised Open Definition and/or
> approval processes regarding license proliferation.
>
> In the meantime I urge others to review the GeoLicence V1.2.1-Open and
> ask questions that will be pertinent to the eventual approval vote.
>
> All may find links to the text, answers to the basic submission
> questions, and my initial question about the text at
> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-November/000711.html
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
>
> 250.704.6154
>
> http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
>
>

-- 

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150316/73de679d/attachment-0003.html>