[open-government] Open Government Licence launched today

[Tim McNamara]

[removed top post]*
*

*
*

*From:* open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:
open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On Behalf Of *Tim McNamara*
*

> My only concern is with licence proliferation. My understanding is that New
> Zealand's Cabinet adopted the CC-BY (New Zealand) licence as its default
> licence for its Crown copyright material this year [1]. May I ask, why the
> UK government has needed to craft a new licence? Those reasons will be quite
> beneficial for me as I learn more about this area.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Tim McNamara
>
> [1] http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/nzgoal
>



On 1 October 2010 02:59, Pearce, Matthew <
Matthew.Pearce at nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:

Tim



Thanks for your reply.  One of the primary drivers for the creation of the
OGL was the need to account for database rights, which are particular to the
EU.  This was necessary to ensure both licensee and licensor had reassurance
over the IP rights covered by the licence (and given that one of the big
packages of information covered is data.gov.uk).  We looked into approaches
using a combination of different licences to cover this need, but the
conclusion was that it would be more simple and enabling to have a single
set of terms and conditions.  We have also taken measures to mitigate the
risks from introducing a new licence: making the OGL compatible with the
CC-BY and ODC-BY  licences; and using the Creative Commons Rights Expression
Language in developing a machine readable version of the OGL.  I hope that
helps.



Regards



*Matthew Pearce*

*Standards Adviser*



The National Archives



Thank you for your reply Matthew.

May I ask further why the licence aimed specifically at public sector data?
If there are deficiencies in the Creative Commons licences' treatment of
database rights, or deficiencies other established licences, then they must
apply to all agencies seeking to publish open data in the UK.

There do not appear to be any specific clauses within the licence that refer
specifically for the Crown. While the definition of licensor provides
specifically for Crown copyright and Crown database rights, they do not
appear to be materially significant. From my external viewpoint, the
marginal cost for HM Stationary Office would have been minimal to craft a
licence that is also applicable for all agencies that wish to publish data,
such as community and private sector organisations.

While you stress that compatibility with established licences is in place,
every individual that seeks reuse of the UK governments' data will still
need to read and comprehend another licence. To me, when I hear that the
licences are compatible, I then think "Well then, what's different?" and
further "If the original licences are insuficient to provide certainty, then
shouldn't they be fixed?".


Regards, Tim McNamara
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20101002/68a7d8c9/attachment.htm>