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