[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)

Tue Mar 17 08:09:04 UTC 2015

Dear Herb,

to you questions:

Jurisdiction specific?

I was referring to the formulations of the legal clauses (e.g. warranty clause)  which were designed to be in line also, but not solely to german law. I you refer to the applicable jurisdiction you are right.

Specifics of geodata?
It is not the need to to attach different rights to geodata but more the fact that there are quite some constellations where it is necessary for the provider or user to have mutual agreements regulating e.g. costs, data protection issues (which would then need a non-open licence) and other things (e.g. quality of service, different warranties depending on whether the user is a private person or a company) which could be part of an open licence. As a consequence the provider is not able to use the same set of licence set where all this is covered. This is why we offer as an additional service the open variant to complete the set of geolicences.

" Licensing of products which cost a fee"?
Right, this is only possible within the eight non-open variants of the geolicence. Not within the Open-variant which is the only variant we are looking to in the OD-conformance check!

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

Hope it clarifies the motivation a bit more.

Best regards,
Lars

Von: herb.lainchbury at gmail.com [mailto:herb.lainchbury at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Herb Lainchbury
Gesendet: Montag, 16. März 2015 19:51
An: Behrens, Lars
Cc: Mike Linksvayer; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Betreff: Re: 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)

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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:250.704.6154>
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
[http://www.dynamic-solutions.com/images/dsisignature.png]

--

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
[http://www.dynamic-solutions.com/images/dsisignature.png]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150317/0223d9ef/attachment-0003.html>