Thanks Richard,
I better understand the difference between the two licenses.
Pierre
>________________________________
> De : Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com>
>À : Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
>Envoyé le : Samedi 2 février 2013 4h26
>Objet : Re: [Talk-ca] Gouvernement ouvert , Gatineau
>
>
>I agree that advocacy with all levels of government is important. They seem
>in general to be interested, and to listen politely, but often to not
>understand that creating a new license is poison to open data. So it is
>important to keep talking with them, more and more of them, until they
>comprehend. "Data law" is relatively new, in terms of law. "Data law" is
>applied unevenly by countries. The very nature of data demands "mixing" with
>other data sets. This means that explicit and careful drafting of a license
>is required so that it will work everywhere without accidentally
>discriminating against a potential user.
>
>
>
>I disagree that ODbL is the right license for municipalities or other
>governments.
>
>
>ODbL is absolutely the right license for OSMF and the OSM community. OSMF must
>serve the OSM community of mappers, and the share alike provision is important
>to a substantial portion of the mapping community. ODbL deliberately
>discriminates against those who would take ODbL data, improve it, and not
>share the improvements. That is an important and deliberate feature of the
>ODbL license
>
>
>Governments must serve all of their citizens, even those who would not choose
>to share. The ODbL share alike provision is not suitable for government
>publishers who mush serve both their sharing and non-sharing constituents. I
>recommend that governments publish their open data under ODC PDDL. PDDL
>allows use, not just in OSM, but in any open data project. PDDL allows use,
>not just in open data projects, but in closed commercial projects that chose
>not to share at all. PDDL allows use in all jurisdictions with established
>data law, but also in jurisdictions where data law is not recognized and
>copyright law is used to fill the gaps.
>
>
>Governments must serve a broader audience than the OSMF must serve.
>OpenDataCommons recognize that one Open Data license is not sufficient, and
>have drafted a suite of licenses. Their licenses are drafted to be
>compatible, so that PDDL data can be included in ODbL data sets.
>
>
>
>Advocating that governments publish open data under PDDL _should_ be easier
>than advocating for ODbL because publishing under PDDL is good for OSM, but
>also good for any other potential use of the data. So, those advocates should
>be seen as not simply advocating something for the benefit of their own pet
>project, OSM, but for the benefit of all potential open data users. To
>advocate that governments support only one specific open data project, even a
>project as wonderful as OpenStreetMap, could be seen as mere self-interest,
>rather than enlightened advocacy.
>
>
>Best regards,
>Richard
>
>
>
>[1] ODC - OpenDataCommons.org - the same publisher of the ODbL license.
>
>[2] PDDL - Public Domain Dedication and License
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-ca mailing list
>Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
