Stewart, thank you for providing more details. What exactly in Ottawa's new open Data license (it recently was updated) is a problem for OSM?
Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 22, 2017, at 7:00 AM, talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to > talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada (Stewart C. Russell) > 2. hebdoOSM Nº 339 10/01/2017-16/01/2017 (weeklyteam) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 23:03:56 -0500 > From: "Stewart C. Russell" <scr...@gmail.com> > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada > Message-ID: <6a9996a6-bed4-d85f-5b73-13dd1766c...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 00:00:14 -0800 (PST) > From: weeklyteam <theweekly....@gmail.com> > To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: hebdoOSM Nº 339 10/01/2017-16/01/2017 > Message-ID: <5884668e.d5091c0a.30ed4.d...@mx.google.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Bonjour, > > Le résumé hebdomadaire n° 339 de l'actualité OpenStreetMap vient de paraître > en français. Un condensé à retrouver à: > > http://www.weeklyosm.eu/fr/archives/8619/ > > Bonne lecture! > > hebdoOSM? > Qui?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages > Où?: > https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3 > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 107, Issue 17 > **************************************** _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
