[Open-Legislation] Reply to: API for EU legislation
stefan.marsiske at gmail.com
Thu May 26 12:53:35 UTC 2011
wow, i should've written a shorter letter. this is great. kudos.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:15:39PM +0200, Niels Erik Kaaber Rasmussen wrote:
> Dear Francis
> Thanks for your answer. We have now added the following terms to the
> API-page under documentation (http://api.epdb.eu#doc):
> From our side we don't impose any restrictions on your use of the
> API. You can mash up with other data set and pass that on to others.
> You can sub-license derived works and in general do whatever you
> want to with the API. We don't require you to attribute us, but will
> be very happy if you do so. However you should be aware that the
> data itself is taken from the mentioned databases and that the
> cannot be responsible for. You are responsible yourself to comply
> with any such third party terms.
> For the content that is ours (ie. does not belong to EUR-Lex, PreLex
> or any other official source) - the API for European Union
> legislation is made available under the Open Database License:
> http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Any rights in
> individual contents of the database are licensed under the Database
> Contents License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/"
> Do you think that this statement on terms and conditions is
> satisfying or is further steps required to make the API "really
> Best, Niels Erik
> (+45) 2680 9492
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:47:00 +0100, Francis Davey wrote:
> >2011/5/26 Niels Erik Kaaber Rasmussen <niels at buhlrasmussen.eu>:
> >>Dear 'Open-Legislation'
> >>I found your thread on our EU API here (dated May 6) and would
> >>be glad to
> >>know which kind of terms and conditions you'd like to see
> >>present at the
> >>API. The data is not ours it is taken from different official
> >>sources, so we
> >>can't really license it - what we can do is to provide a free an
> >>interface for others to use it.
> >>In regards to itsyourparliament - the data we have there has
> >>been public
> >>nearly since the opening of the site in the beginning of 2010, see
> >>Stefan Marsiske states that "...there is unclear licensing, and
> >>it's not
> >>really open." - we are sorry for the unclear licensing, how can
> >>we fix that?
> >>And what can we do to make it really open?
> >Ideally, release it under a well recognised open licence. That is
> >easier said than done of course because creative commons doesn't
> >properly handle database rights and (for some people) the ODbL is too
> >You may find the ODbL is appropriate and meets your attribution
> >requirements. I'd give it a careful read:
> >In practical terms its not clear from your website what I am allowed
> >to do with your data. In particular, can I mash it up with other data
> >and pass that on to others (say via my own API)? In legal terms,
> >may I
> >sub-license derived works? On the main page you talk about "linking
> >back" but even in these days people sometimes produce work that is
> >made available via a webpage (or not solely) so what then? Presumably
> >you want attribution one way or another.
> >This isn't meant to be a criticism of mine, I'm just suggesting
> >reasons why someone might want more clarity in licensing.
> open-legislation mailing list
> open-legislation at lists.okfn.org
---end quoted text---
gpg fp: F617 AC77 6E86 5830 08B8 BB96 E7A4 C6CF A84A 7140
More information about the open-legislation