Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[James]

If every license was perfect, we wouldnt need lawyers...

On Mar 4, 2017 10:03 AM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:

> On 2017-03-04 09:09 AM, James wrote:
> > As the LWG said, it's not a blanket acceptance of all OGL variants, but
> > if future licenses we come across are exactly the same(kdiff of text or
> > something as proof) except the city/entity name. We will have a strong
> > case that it is compatible with ODbL.
>
> Yes, it would definitely help to show that the text of a new licence is
> only trivially different from an accepted one. We'd still need to run it
> past the LWG, though. Any new licence creates new obligations for the
> Foundation. Sometimes these new obligations are trivial, but they need
> to be recognized.
>
> > So if future cities are looking to change their license they can use
> > Ottawa license as an example so they are sure it's compatible
>
> Ottawa's licence isn't exactly a shining example. It was good they
> changed their licence from a grievously incompatible one after you
> contacted them about it.
>
> Annoyances with the Ottawa licence include:
>
> * it still includes the third party rights exemption that was brought
>   over from the UK licence. I don't see any way that this will go away
>   for existing data.
>
> * it doesn't have the statement on compatibility that the UK OGL
>   licence includes. This would definitely ease adoption.
>
> cheers,
>  Stewart
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-03-04 09:09 AM, James wrote:
> As the LWG said, it's not a blanket acceptance of all OGL variants, but
> if future licenses we come across are exactly the same(kdiff of text or
> something as proof) except the city/entity name. We will have a strong
> case that it is compatible with ODbL.

Yes, it would definitely help to show that the text of a new licence is
only trivially different from an accepted one. We'd still need to run it
past the LWG, though. Any new licence creates new obligations for the
Foundation. Sometimes these new obligations are trivial, but they need
to be recognized.

> So if future cities are looking to change their license they can use
> Ottawa license as an example so they are sure it's compatible

Ottawa's licence isn't exactly a shining example. It was good they
changed their licence from a grievously incompatible one after you
contacted them about it.

Annoyances with the Ottawa licence include:

* it still includes the third party rights exemption that was brought
  over from the UK licence. I don't see any way that this will go away
  for existing data.

* it doesn't have the statement on compatibility that the UK OGL
  licence includes. This would definitely ease adoption.

cheers,
 Stewart




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[James]

Weird there was the same thing yesterday in Ottawa with open.canada.ca

On Mar 4, 2017 9:39 AM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:

> On 2017-03-04 08:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> >
> > We can follow the same steps and workflow in the future if we
> potentially move to another city.
> > This is also something municipalities can use in defining their open
> data licenses.
>
> Yup - for that reason, I will be asking the LWG about the licences for
> Ontario, Toronto and Toronto Public library (yup, all different).
>
> For the record:
>
>  1) LWG's decision on Ottawa doesn't immediately open up all Canadian
> open data to be imported into OSM. The LWG, for now at least, plans
> to review them on a case by case base.
>
>  2) If you're wishing to get a new licence approved, the timeline from
> approaching the LWG to getting approval was about two months.
> Please build that delay into any critical path
>
> And belated happy Open Data Day! The reason I was late posting this (LWG
> gave me access to the draft minutes mid-afternoon) that I was in an
> all-day session with Government of Ontario open data people in Toronto.
> Government of Ontario has some very committed open data people.
>
> cheers,
>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2017-03-04 08:20 AM, Bjenk Ellefsen wrote:
> 
> We can follow the same steps and workflow in the future if we potentially 
> move to another city.
> This is also something municipalities can use in defining their open data 
> licenses. 

Yup - for that reason, I will be asking the LWG about the licences for
Ontario, Toronto and Toronto Public library (yup, all different).

For the record:

 1) LWG's decision on Ottawa doesn't immediately open up all Canadian
open data to be imported into OSM. The LWG, for now at least, plans
to review them on a case by case base.

 2) If you're wishing to get a new licence approved, the timeline from
approaching the LWG to getting approval was about two months.
Please build that delay into any critical path

And belated happy Open Data Day! The reason I was late posting this (LWG
gave me access to the draft minutes mid-afternoon) that I was in an
all-day session with Government of Ontario open data people in Toronto.
Government of Ontario has some very committed open data people.

cheers,
 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[James]

As the LWG said, it's not a blanket acceptance of all OGL variants, but if
future licenses we come across are exactly the same(kdiff of text or
something as proof) except the city/entity name. We will have a strong case
that it is compatible with ODbL. The problem lies when cities decide to add
lines/restrictions that can make it non-open.

So if future cities are looking to change their license they can use Ottawa
license as an example so they are sure it's compatible

On Mar 4, 2017 8:50 AM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> I assume then this means that other municipalities that use the municipal
> 2.0 version of the Treasury Board Open Data License can now have their bus
> stops imported if the local mappers wish to do so?
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 3 March 2017 at 21:15, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
>
>> I just got access to the OSMF LWG draft minutes from yesterday, and I
>> have good news: Ottawa ODL 2.0 data *can* be included in the OSM
>> database.
>>
>> The minutes link - https://docs.google.com/docume
>> nt/d/1KyTLbQWSmo1rdoppqlFGTB3by-qVAzjLo_LPml3Ri9Y/edit - is still draft
>> so may not be generally readable, so I've included the text in full below:
>>
>> *5. Statement on Ottawa Open Data Licence Version 2.0 compatibility*
>>
>> Approval of the following statement:
>>
>> ---
>>
>> The LWG has been asked to determine the compatibility of Ottawa Open
>> Data, Licence Version 2.0 (Ottawa ODL 2.0) with the ODbL 2.0 in conjunction
>> with importing so licensed data. The text of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be
>> found here
>> 
>> *http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0*
>> 
>>
>> The Ottawa ODL 2.0 is a localised version of the OGL Canada
>> 
>> *http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada*
>>  which in turn
>> is loosly based on the UK OGL. The changes relative to the OGL Canada due
>> to localisation are the licensor (the City of Ottawa) and reference to the
>> definition of "personal information" as defined in the "Ontario Municipal
>> Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act",
>>
>> The LWG has determined
>>
>>-
>>
>>that the attribution requirements of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be met by
>>adding the required text to the wiki contributor page and corresponding
>>changeset source attribute values, and that there is no downstream
>>attribution requirement,
>>-
>>
>>that we are not using "Personal Information" as defined in the
>>licence and referenced legislation,
>>
>> and that so licensed material can be included in the OpenStreetMap
>> dataset and distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms.
>>
>> In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely and
>> have in some cases included additional terms that have made them
>> incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this reason
>> we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised versions of
>> the OGL at this point in time and will continue to review them on a case by
>> case base.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Approved with 4 yes, 1 abstain.
>>
>>
>> I've also updated the wiki page.
>>
>> Have a great weekend!
>>  Stewart
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[john whelan]

I assume then this means that other municipalities that use the municipal
2.0 version of the Treasury Board Open Data License can now have their bus
stops imported if the local mappers wish to do so?

Thanks John

On 3 March 2017 at 21:15, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:

> I just got access to the OSMF LWG draft minutes from yesterday, and I have
> good news: Ottawa ODL 2.0 data *can* be included in the OSM database.
>
> The minutes link - https://docs.google.com/document/d/
> 1KyTLbQWSmo1rdoppqlFGTB3by-qVAzjLo_LPml3Ri9Y/edit - is still draft so may
> not be generally readable, so I've included the text in full below:
>
> *5. Statement on Ottawa Open Data Licence Version 2.0 compatibility*
>
> Approval of the following statement:
>
> ---
>
> The LWG has been asked to determine the compatibility of Ottawa Open Data,
> Licence Version 2.0 (Ottawa ODL 2.0) with the ODbL 2.0 in conjunction with
> importing so licensed data. The text of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be found here
> 
> *http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0*
> 
>
> The Ottawa ODL 2.0 is a localised version of the OGL Canada
> 
> *http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada*
>  which in turn
> is loosly based on the UK OGL. The changes relative to the OGL Canada due
> to localisation are the licensor (the City of Ottawa) and reference to the
> definition of "personal information" as defined in the "Ontario Municipal
> Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act",
>
> The LWG has determined
>
>-
>
>that the attribution requirements of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be met by
>adding the required text to the wiki contributor page and corresponding
>changeset source attribute values, and that there is no downstream
>attribution requirement,
>-
>
>that we are not using "Personal Information" as defined in the licence
>and referenced legislation,
>
> and that so licensed material can be included in the OpenStreetMap dataset
> and distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms.
>
> In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely and
> have in some cases included additional terms that have made them
> incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this reason
> we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised versions of
> the OGL at this point in time and will continue to review them on a case by
> case base.
>
> ---
>
> Approved with 4 yes, 1 abstain.
>
>
> I've also updated the wiki page.
>
> Have a great weekend!
>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

This is fantastic news!

Thank you everyone for your help!

We can follow the same steps and workflow in the future if we potentially move 
to another city.
This is also something municipalities can use in defining their open data 
licenses. 

Bjenk Ellefsen
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[Denis Carriere]

Thanks Stewart for bringing this information forward.

We will surely make sure to spread the announcement locally here in Ottawa.

Enjoy the weekend!

*~~*
*Denis Carriere*
*GIS Software & Systems Specialist*

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 1:01 AM, James  wrote:

> Thank you scruss for digging up the meeting notes :)
>
> On Mar 4, 2017 12:40 AM, "Heather Leson"  wrote:
>
> Fantastic. Happy open data day!
>
> On 4 Mar 2017 04:12, "John Marshall"  wrote:
>
>> Great news
>>
>> On Mar 3, 2017 9:16 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:
>>
>>> I just got access to the OSMF LWG draft minutes from yesterday, and I
>>> have good news: Ottawa ODL 2.0 data *can* be included in the OSM
>>> database.
>>>
>>> The minutes link - https://docs.google.com/docume
>>> nt/d/1KyTLbQWSmo1rdoppqlFGTB3by-qVAzjLo_LPml3Ri9Y/edit - is still draft
>>> so may not be generally readable, so I've included the text in full below:
>>>
>>> *5. Statement on Ottawa Open Data Licence Version 2.0 compatibility*
>>>
>>> Approval of the following statement:
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> The LWG has been asked to determine the compatibility of Ottawa Open
>>> Data, Licence Version 2.0 (Ottawa ODL 2.0) with the ODbL 2.0 in conjunction
>>> with importing so licensed data. The text of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be
>>> found here
>>> 
>>> *http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0*
>>> 
>>>
>>> The Ottawa ODL 2.0 is a localised version of the OGL Canada
>>> 
>>> *http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada*
>>>  which in turn
>>> is loosly based on the UK OGL. The changes relative to the OGL Canada due
>>> to localisation are the licensor (the City of Ottawa) and reference to the
>>> definition of "personal information" as defined in the "Ontario Municipal
>>> Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act",
>>>
>>> The LWG has determined
>>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>that the attribution requirements of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be met
>>>by adding the required text to the wiki contributor page and 
>>> corresponding
>>>changeset source attribute values, and that there is no downstream
>>>attribution requirement,
>>>-
>>>
>>>that we are not using "Personal Information" as defined in the
>>>licence and referenced legislation,
>>>
>>> and that so licensed material can be included in the OpenStreetMap
>>> dataset and distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms.
>>>
>>> In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely and
>>> have in some cases included additional terms that have made them
>>> incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this reason
>>> we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised versions of
>>> the OGL at this point in time and will continue to review them on a case by
>>> case base.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Approved with 4 yes, 1 abstain.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've also updated the wiki page.
>>>
>>> Have a great weekend!
>>>  Stewart
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[James]

Thank you scruss for digging up the meeting notes :)

On Mar 4, 2017 12:40 AM, "Heather Leson"  wrote:

Fantastic. Happy open data day!

On 4 Mar 2017 04:12, "John Marshall"  wrote:

> Great news
>
> On Mar 3, 2017 9:16 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:
>
>> I just got access to the OSMF LWG draft minutes from yesterday, and I
>> have good news: Ottawa ODL 2.0 data *can* be included in the OSM
>> database.
>>
>> The minutes link - https://docs.google.com/docume
>> nt/d/1KyTLbQWSmo1rdoppqlFGTB3by-qVAzjLo_LPml3Ri9Y/edit - is still draft
>> so may not be generally readable, so I've included the text in full below:
>>
>> *5. Statement on Ottawa Open Data Licence Version 2.0 compatibility*
>>
>> Approval of the following statement:
>>
>> ---
>>
>> The LWG has been asked to determine the compatibility of Ottawa Open
>> Data, Licence Version 2.0 (Ottawa ODL 2.0) with the ODbL 2.0 in conjunction
>> with importing so licensed data. The text of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be
>> found here
>> 
>> *http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0*
>> 
>>
>> The Ottawa ODL 2.0 is a localised version of the OGL Canada
>> 
>> *http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada*
>>  which in turn
>> is loosly based on the UK OGL. The changes relative to the OGL Canada due
>> to localisation are the licensor (the City of Ottawa) and reference to the
>> definition of "personal information" as defined in the "Ontario Municipal
>> Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act",
>>
>> The LWG has determined
>>
>>-
>>
>>that the attribution requirements of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be met by
>>adding the required text to the wiki contributor page and corresponding
>>changeset source attribute values, and that there is no downstream
>>attribution requirement,
>>-
>>
>>that we are not using "Personal Information" as defined in the
>>licence and referenced legislation,
>>
>> and that so licensed material can be included in the OpenStreetMap
>> dataset and distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms.
>>
>> In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely and
>> have in some cases included additional terms that have made them
>> incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this reason
>> we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised versions of
>> the OGL at this point in time and will continue to review them on a case by
>> case base.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Approved with 4 yes, 1 abstain.
>>
>>
>> I've also updated the wiki page.
>>
>> Have a great weekend!
>>  Stewart
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[Heather Leson]

Fantastic. Happy open data day!

On 4 Mar 2017 04:12, "John Marshall"  wrote:

> Great news
>
> On Mar 3, 2017 9:16 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:
>
>> I just got access to the OSMF LWG draft minutes from yesterday, and I
>> have good news: Ottawa ODL 2.0 data *can* be included in the OSM
>> database.
>>
>> The minutes link - https://docs.google.com/docume
>> nt/d/1KyTLbQWSmo1rdoppqlFGTB3by-qVAzjLo_LPml3Ri9Y/edit - is still draft
>> so may not be generally readable, so I've included the text in full below:
>>
>> *5. Statement on Ottawa Open Data Licence Version 2.0 compatibility*
>>
>> Approval of the following statement:
>>
>> ---
>>
>> The LWG has been asked to determine the compatibility of Ottawa Open
>> Data, Licence Version 2.0 (Ottawa ODL 2.0) with the ODbL 2.0 in conjunction
>> with importing so licensed data. The text of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be
>> found here
>> 
>> *http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0*
>> 
>>
>> The Ottawa ODL 2.0 is a localised version of the OGL Canada
>> 
>> *http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada*
>>  which in turn
>> is loosly based on the UK OGL. The changes relative to the OGL Canada due
>> to localisation are the licensor (the City of Ottawa) and reference to the
>> definition of "personal information" as defined in the "Ontario Municipal
>> Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act",
>>
>> The LWG has determined
>>
>>-
>>
>>that the attribution requirements of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be met by
>>adding the required text to the wiki contributor page and corresponding
>>changeset source attribute values, and that there is no downstream
>>attribution requirement,
>>-
>>
>>that we are not using "Personal Information" as defined in the
>>licence and referenced legislation,
>>
>> and that so licensed material can be included in the OpenStreetMap
>> dataset and distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms.
>>
>> In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely and
>> have in some cases included additional terms that have made them
>> incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this reason
>> we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised versions of
>> the OGL at this point in time and will continue to review them on a case by
>> case base.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Approved with 4 yes, 1 abstain.
>>
>>
>> I've also updated the wiki page.
>>
>> Have a great weekend!
>>  Stewart
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[John Marshall]

Great news

On Mar 3, 2017 9:16 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:

> I just got access to the OSMF LWG draft minutes from yesterday, and I have
> good news: Ottawa ODL 2.0 data *can* be included in the OSM database.
>
> The minutes link - https://docs.google.com/document/d/
> 1KyTLbQWSmo1rdoppqlFGTB3by-qVAzjLo_LPml3Ri9Y/edit - is still draft so may
> not be generally readable, so I've included the text in full below:
>
> *5. Statement on Ottawa Open Data Licence Version 2.0 compatibility*
>
> Approval of the following statement:
>
> ---
>
> The LWG has been asked to determine the compatibility of Ottawa Open Data,
> Licence Version 2.0 (Ottawa ODL 2.0) with the ODbL 2.0 in conjunction with
> importing so licensed data. The text of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be found here
> 
> *http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0*
> 
>
> The Ottawa ODL 2.0 is a localised version of the OGL Canada
> 
> *http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada*
>  which in turn
> is loosly based on the UK OGL. The changes relative to the OGL Canada due
> to localisation are the licensor (the City of Ottawa) and reference to the
> definition of "personal information" as defined in the "Ontario Municipal
> Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act",
>
> The LWG has determined
>
>-
>
>that the attribution requirements of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be met by
>adding the required text to the wiki contributor page and corresponding
>changeset source attribute values, and that there is no downstream
>attribution requirement,
>-
>
>that we are not using "Personal Information" as defined in the licence
>and referenced legislation,
>
> and that so licensed material can be included in the OpenStreetMap dataset
> and distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms.
>
> In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely and
> have in some cases included additional terms that have made them
> incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this reason
> we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised versions of
> the OGL at this point in time and will continue to review them on a case by
> case base.
>
> ---
>
> Approved with 4 yes, 1 abstain.
>
>
> I've also updated the wiki page.
>
> Have a great weekend!
>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Ottawa ODL 2.0 is go!)

[Stewart C. Russell]

I just got access to the OSMF LWG draft minutes from yesterday, and I
have good news: Ottawa ODL 2.0 data /can/ be included in the OSM database.

The minutes link -
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KyTLbQWSmo1rdoppqlFGTB3by-qVAzjLo_LPml3Ri9Y/edit
- is still draft so may not be generally readable, so I've included the
text in full below:

*5. Statement on Ottawa Open Data Licence Version 2.0 compatibility*

Approval of the following statement:

---

The LWG has been asked to determine the compatibility of Ottawa Open
Data, Licence Version 2.0 (Ottawa ODL 2.0) with the ODbL 2.0 in
conjunction with importing so licensed data. The text of the Ottawa
ODL 2.0 can be found

here_http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/get-know-your-city/open-data#open-data-licence-version-2-0_

The Ottawa ODL 2.0 is a localised version of the OGL

Canada_http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada_which
in turn is loosly based on the UK OGL. The changes relative to the
OGL Canada due to localisation are the licensor (the City of Ottawa)
and reference to the definition of "personal information" as defined
in the "Ontario Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act",

The LWG has determined

  *

that the attribution requirements of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be
met by adding the required text to the wiki contributor page and
corresponding changeset source attribute values, and that there
is no downstream attribution requirement,

  *

that we are not using "Personal Information" as defined in the
licence and referenced legislation,

and that so licensed material can be included in the OpenStreetMap
dataset and distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms.

In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely
and have in some cases included additional terms that have made them
incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this
reason we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised
versions of the OGL at this point in time and will continue to
review them on a case by case base.

---

Approved with 4 yes, 1 abstain.


I've also updated the wiki page.

Have a great weekend!
 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[James]

I have a statement from the city that the ODBL and ODL are inline and pose
no issues from the city's stand point.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan#Explicit_permission

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Stewart C. Russell 
wrote:

> Hi James -
>
> > Yet it's the same as the Vancouver one that has been approved, and had
> > data imported
>
> Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way that OSM needs to work.
> The licences aren't the same: you can't use Vancouver's agreement to
> bind the City of Ottawa, and the Federal agreement doesn't hold Ottawa
> to anything about its data.
>
> The Vancouver data was available to OSM because Paul Norman and Adam
> Williamson[1] got an agreement from the city's Director, Access to
> Information stating that the city's data sets were released in
> accordance with the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of
> Privacy Act[2].
>
> (I'd also recommend Paul Norman's notes on licence compatibility[3]
> linked from the OSM Vancouver page[4]: they explain why all these
> licenses aren't equivalent, and why it's so much work for us to accept
> them.)
>
> What I think - and I say think, because I'm learning too - needs to
> happen is that we ask the City's Access to Information officials:
>
> Can you please confirm in writing that the data sets
>  * (name of data set 1) (url of data set 1)
>  * (name of data set 2) (url of data set 2)
>  * ...
> are released in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Freedom
> of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?
>
> With that confirmation in hand, and the LWG's confirmation (requested by
> me, yesterday) that the City's data licence 2.0 is compatible, then I
> think the matter should go away. Apologies if my approach has appeared
> to change: as I said, I'm learning as I go along.
>
> Best Wishes,
>  Stewart
>
> References:
>
> [1]: “[Talk-ca] [Fwd: Compliance statement] - Vancouver address
> information cleared for OSM use”
>  February/006037.html>
>
> [2]: “Compliance statement”
>  attachments/20140203/c3441d6a/attachment.mht>
>
> [3]: “[Talk-ca] Nanaimo OGL license”
>  December/005974.html>
>
> [4]: “Canada:British Columbia:Vancouver”
>  Columbia:Vancouver#GIS_sources_by_city>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi James -

> Yet it's the same as the Vancouver one that has been approved, and had
> data imported

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way that OSM needs to work.
The licences aren't the same: you can't use Vancouver's agreement to
bind the City of Ottawa, and the Federal agreement doesn't hold Ottawa
to anything about its data.

The Vancouver data was available to OSM because Paul Norman and Adam
Williamson[1] got an agreement from the city's Director, Access to
Information stating that the city's data sets were released in
accordance with the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act[2].

(I'd also recommend Paul Norman's notes on licence compatibility[3]
linked from the OSM Vancouver page[4]: they explain why all these
licenses aren't equivalent, and why it's so much work for us to accept
them.)

What I think - and I say think, because I'm learning too - needs to
happen is that we ask the City's Access to Information officials:

Can you please confirm in writing that the data sets
 * (name of data set 1) (url of data set 1)
 * (name of data set 2) (url of data set 2)
 * ...
are released in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

With that confirmation in hand, and the LWG's confirmation (requested by
me, yesterday) that the City's data licence 2.0 is compatible, then I
think the matter should go away. Apologies if my approach has appeared
to change: as I said, I'm learning as I go along.

Best Wishes,
 Stewart

References:

[1]: “[Talk-ca] [Fwd: Compliance statement] - Vancouver address
information cleared for OSM use”



[2]: “Compliance statement”



[3]: “[Talk-ca] Nanaimo OGL license”



[4]: “Canada:British Columbia:Vancouver”




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[James]

Yet it's the same as the Vancouver one that has been approved, and had data
imported

On Jan 25, 2017 8:30 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:

> Hi Bjenk,
>
> > Most participants here agree that open data initiatives exist so that
> > we, the public, organizations including OSM, everyone can use the
> > data.
>
> The OSM project can't accept data that might have hidden licensing
> issues that might jeopardize OSM's existence. All new licenses are
> treated with extreme caution. From the Legal FAQ:
>
> “XYZ Organisation has data for free download under licence N. Can I use
> it in OSM?
>
> Approach the data owners, explain OSM, and seek written permission to
> licence their data under our licence and contributor terms.
>
> Unless the data is genuinely offered without any restrictions on use at
> all (i.e. public domain), please contact the Licensing Working Group for
> advice. Do not rely on your own legal interpretation of the licence. OSM
> is all about creating a freely and easily redistributable data set.
> Anything which taints the dataset or exposes OSM to possible legal
> action interferes with that objective.
>
> Even if you only want to use a minor part, or compare the sources, you
> should still seek approval in writing. The legal principles involved are
> not well developed, and the OSM community wants to develop a free and
> untainted dataset and not test any of the legal issues involved here.
>
> In short: be ultra-cautious”
>
>  Organisation_has_data_for_free_download_under_licence_N.
> _Can_I_use_it_in_OSM.3F>
>
> > With that said, It has not yet been clearly explained what are the
> > issues nor the sources raising concerns. Many have asked for
> > clarifications and these have not been presented.
>
> These responses take time. We're all volunteers who do this for fun.
> I've (just) requested clarification from the OSMF License Working group.
> I don't know if anyone had before. To OSM, the Ottawa licence is
> different from the Federal OGL, so it needs looked at.
>
>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Bjenk,

> Most participants here agree that open data initiatives exist so that
> we, the public, organizations including OSM, everyone can use the
> data.

The OSM project can't accept data that might have hidden licensing
issues that might jeopardize OSM's existence. All new licenses are
treated with extreme caution. From the Legal FAQ:

“XYZ Organisation has data for free download under licence N. Can I use
it in OSM?

Approach the data owners, explain OSM, and seek written permission to
licence their data under our licence and contributor terms.

Unless the data is genuinely offered without any restrictions on use at
all (i.e. public domain), please contact the Licensing Working Group for
advice. Do not rely on your own legal interpretation of the licence. OSM
is all about creating a freely and easily redistributable data set.
Anything which taints the dataset or exposes OSM to possible legal
action interferes with that objective.

Even if you only want to use a minor part, or compare the sources, you
should still seek approval in writing. The legal principles involved are
not well developed, and the OSM community wants to develop a free and
untainted dataset and not test any of the legal issues involved here.

In short: be ultra-cautious”



> With that said, It has not yet been clearly explained what are the
> issues nor the sources raising concerns. Many have asked for
> clarifications and these have not been presented.

These responses take time. We're all volunteers who do this for fun.
I've (just) requested clarification from the OSMF License Working group.
I don't know if anyone had before. To OSM, the Ottawa licence is
different from the Federal OGL, so it needs looked at.

 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[John Marshall]

I agree with Bernie.

The intent of the City of Ottawa was for this data to be added to OSM.

John Marshall
Ottawa

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bernie Connors <berniejconn...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Stewart,
>
>   Governments are writing open data policies, creating open data
> portals, and adopting the OGL-CA Licence because they want their data to be
> used. There are many benefits for governments to do this. It makes them
> appear more transparent, it supports citizens, businesses  and researchers,
> and it largely relieves them from having to monitor and police the
> licensees of their data (although I suspect that little or no effort was
> ever applied to monitoring licencees).
>
>So we know their intentions, we have a very permissive ‎licence,
> and the chance of OGL-CA licence issues arising are very, very slim. We
> should stop fretting over the OGL-CA derived licences and start mapping.  I
> don't hide inside my home for fear of being struck by lightning and I don't
> refrain from mapping with data that has a very permissive licence. It's not
> a perfect licence but nothing in life ever is perfect.
>
> Best regards,
> Bernie.
>
> Bernie Connors, P.Eng
> Geomatics Engineer and Civil Servant
> New Maryland, NB
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>   Original Message
> From: Stewart C. Russell
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 12:05 AM
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada
>
> Hi Bjenk -
>
> > I am not sure why there is confusion about Ottawa's ODL and it's
> > equivalence to OGL because the information is public but here it is to
> > clarify:
> >
> > "The Open Data License is based on version 2.0 of the “Open Government
> > Licence – Canada” which was developed through public consultation and
> > consultation with other jurisdictions"
>
> I sense your frustration, and understand that this process must be
> trying. But it's partly an artifact of the licence itself.
>
> The Open Government Licence - Canada, version 2.0 (OGL-CA) is compatible
> with OSM's licence. This was confirmed in 2013:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-
> November/005906.html
>
> (Paul Norman tells me that there's an official notice somewhere from
> Government confirming this, but neither he nor I can find it.)
>
> Unfortunately, one trait of the licence inherited from its parent (the
> Open Government Licence United Kingdom 2.0,
> https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/
> )
> is that it is not _reusable_. Here, reusable means that the licence is
> not specific to an organization or jurisdiction. The OGL-CA has Her
> Majesty the Queen in right of Canada baked in as Information Provider.
> No-one but the Federal government can be that Information Provider. So
> even if Municipality of X wished to adopt the “Open Government Licence -
> X” by replacing ‘Canada’ with ‘X’, it would have to make textual changes
> to the licence, and in doing so — and this is the critical part — makes
> a new and different licence from the OGL-CA.
>
> (Paul N. previously suggested that the UK OGL was more reusable, and had
> better CC BY and ODC BY compatibility than OGL-CA.)
>
> So we can't use Ottawa's data under the Federal OGL-CA.
>
> Even with the best intentions, adoption of the OGL-CA results in
> fragmentation. For example, there's the "Open Government Licence –
> Ontario", the "Open Government Licence – Toronto" and the "Open
> Government Licence - Toronto Public Library". All of these, though based
> on OGL-CA, are *different* licences, and necessarily so. Accepting the
> OGL-CA hasn't allowed OSM to automatically accept all the derivatives
> under it.
>
> (It also helps that OSM explicitly has a statement from the Federal
> Government saying that we have permission to use their data. This
> permission does not flow down to provincial or municipal data.)
>
> If one happens to be a government, or a large commercial entity, one can
> muster lawyers to ensure one's continued existence if there's a legal
> challenge. OpenStreetMap doesn't have that luxury. In order to ensure
> continuity of the OSM project, a degree of caution is required.
>
> So while access to open data is valued by the community, it would be
> lovely if someone could pay for all the lawyers needed to go over the
> licences on behalf of OSM/OSMF too. To the best of my knowledge this
> assistance has seldom been forthcoming.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[Bernie Connors]

Stewart,

      Governments are writing open data policies, creating open data portals, 
and adopting the OGL-CA Licence because they want their data to be used. There 
are many benefits for governments to do this. It makes them appear more 
transparent, it supports citizens, businesses  and researchers, and it largely 
relieves them from having to monitor and police the licensees of their data 
(although I suspect that little or no effort was ever applied to monitoring 
licencees).  

       So we know their intentions, we have a very permissive ‎licence, and the 
chance of OGL-CA licence issues arising are very, very slim. We should stop 
fretting over the OGL-CA derived licences and start mapping.  I don't hide 
inside my home for fear of being struck by lightning and I don't refrain from 
mapping with data that has a very permissive licence. It's not a perfect 
licence but nothing in life ever is perfect. 

Best regards, 
Bernie. 

Bernie Connors, P.Eng 
Geomatics Engineer and Civil Servant 
New Maryland, NB

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
  Original Message  
From: Stewart C. Russell
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 12:05 AM
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

Hi Bjenk -

> I am not sure why there is confusion about Ottawa's ODL and it's
> equivalence to OGL because the information is public but here it is to
> clarify:
> 
> "The Open Data License is based on version 2.0 of the “Open Government
> Licence – Canada” which was developed through public consultation and
> consultation with other jurisdictions"

I sense your frustration, and understand that this process must be
trying. But it's partly an artifact of the licence itself.

The Open Government Licence - Canada, version 2.0 (OGL-CA) is compatible
with OSM's licence. This was confirmed in 2013:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-November/005906.html

(Paul Norman tells me that there's an official notice somewhere from
Government confirming this, but neither he nor I can find it.)

Unfortunately, one trait of the licence inherited from its parent (the
Open Government Licence United Kingdom 2.0,
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/)
is that it is not _reusable_. Here, reusable means that the licence is
not specific to an organization or jurisdiction. The OGL-CA has Her
Majesty the Queen in right of Canada baked in as Information Provider.
No-one but the Federal government can be that Information Provider. So
even if Municipality of X wished to adopt the “Open Government Licence -
X” by replacing ‘Canada’ with ‘X’, it would have to make textual changes
to the licence, and in doing so — and this is the critical part — makes
a new and different licence from the OGL-CA.

(Paul N. previously suggested that the UK OGL was more reusable, and had
better CC BY and ODC BY compatibility than OGL-CA.)

So we can't use Ottawa's data under the Federal OGL-CA.

Even with the best intentions, adoption of the OGL-CA results in
fragmentation. For example, there's the "Open Government Licence –
Ontario", the "Open Government Licence – Toronto" and the "Open
Government Licence - Toronto Public Library". All of these, though based
on OGL-CA, are *different* licences, and necessarily so. Accepting the
OGL-CA hasn't allowed OSM to automatically accept all the derivatives
under it.

(It also helps that OSM explicitly has a statement from the Federal
Government saying that we have permission to use their data. This
permission does not flow down to provincial or municipal data.)

If one happens to be a government, or a large commercial entity, one can
muster lawyers to ensure one's continued existence if there's a legal
challenge. OpenStreetMap doesn't have that luxury. In order to ensure
continuity of the OSM project, a degree of caution is required.

So while access to open data is valued by the community, it would be
lovely if someone could pay for all the lawyers needed to go over the
licences on behalf of OSM/OSMF too. To the best of my knowledge this
assistance has seldom been forthcoming.

Best Wishes,
Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Bjenk -

> I am not sure why there is confusion about Ottawa's ODL and it's
> equivalence to OGL because the information is public but here it is to
> clarify:
> 
> "The Open Data License is based on version 2.0 of the “Open Government
> Licence – Canada” which was developed through public consultation and
> consultation with other jurisdictions"

I sense your frustration, and understand that this process must be
trying. But it's partly an artifact of the licence itself.

The Open Government Licence - Canada, version 2.0 (OGL-CA) is compatible
with OSM's licence. This was confirmed in 2013:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2013-November/005906.html

(Paul Norman tells me that there's an official notice somewhere from
Government confirming this, but neither he nor I can find it.)

Unfortunately, one trait of the licence inherited from its parent (the
Open Government Licence United Kingdom 2.0,
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/)
is that it is not _reusable_. Here, reusable means that the licence is
not specific to an organization or jurisdiction. The OGL-CA has Her
Majesty the Queen in right of Canada baked in as Information Provider.
No-one but the Federal government can be that Information Provider. So
even if Municipality of X wished to adopt the “Open Government Licence -
X” by replacing ‘Canada’ with ‘X’, it would have to make textual changes
to the licence, and in doing so — and this is the critical part — makes
a new and different licence from the OGL-CA.

(Paul N. previously suggested that the UK OGL was more reusable, and had
better CC BY and ODC BY compatibility than OGL-CA.)

So we can't use Ottawa's data under the Federal OGL-CA.

Even with the best intentions, adoption of the OGL-CA results in
fragmentation. For example, there's the "Open Government Licence –
Ontario", the "Open Government Licence – Toronto" and the "Open
Government Licence - Toronto Public Library". All of these, though based
on OGL-CA, are *different* licences, and necessarily so. Accepting the
OGL-CA hasn't allowed OSM to automatically accept all the derivatives
under it.

(It also helps that OSM explicitly has a statement from the Federal
Government saying that we have permission to use their data. This
permission does not flow down to provincial or municipal data.)

If one happens to be a government, or a large commercial entity, one can
muster lawyers to ensure one's continued existence if there's a legal
challenge. OpenStreetMap doesn't have that luxury. In order to ensure
continuity of the OSM project, a degree of caution is required.

So while access to open data is valued by the community, it would be
lovely if someone could pay for all the lawyers needed to go over the
licences on behalf of OSM/OSMF too. To the best of my knowledge this
assistance has seldom been forthcoming.

Best Wishes,
 Stewart


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca