If someone actually read the introduction, it is saying exactly what Steve is saying: replacing governing bodies.
This licence is based on version 2.0 of the Open Government Licence – Canada, which was developed through public consultation. The only substantive changes in this licence are to replace direct references to the Government of Canada with the City of Ottawa, replace a reference to the Federal Privacy Act with a reference to the Ontario Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and remove a reference to the Federal Court of Canada. So why is this not considered the exact same as OGL-CA, which is considered compatible with ODBL? On Jan 22, 2017 12:36 PM, "Steve Singer" <st...@ssinger.info> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Paul Norman wrote: > > On 1/20/2017 6:00 PM, James wrote: >> >>> Is OGL-CA not compatible with osm? >>> >> >> The license isn't OGL-CA. OGL-CA is the license from the Federal >> government, while the City of Ottawa uses the ODL. In the case of OGL-CA >> data it's compatible because they gave a statement on compatibility. >> > > It seems to me that there are at least three situations that can crop up > in deciding if we can use data > > 1) A reading of the license text allows the use with OSM. If the text of > a given license is compatible with the requirements of OSM then I don't > see why we need any additional statement. > > 2) The compatibility of the license is unclear because of particular terms > of the license. A particular government entity then gives us a statement > saying that they feel the license is compatible with OSM. That same > government entity would then have a hard time coming back later and saying > that the license isn't compatible. However it doesn't tie the hands of > other government entities that happen to be using the same license. > > 3) A particular license might not be compatible with OSM but the > government entity gives us permission to use their data. In this case the > 'permission' is the license. > > Why doesn't the OGL 2.0 qualify as compatible under criteria 1? Is there > any particular term in a templated OGL 2.0 that someone feels is a concern? > > Replacing a <INSERT_LICENSING_ENTITY_HERE> variable with 'Government of > Canada' versus 'City of Ottawa' doesn't change the license. we see this in > software licenses all the time. The BSD software license reads 'Regents of > the University of California' but changing that to the organization that is > releasing the code doesn't make it no longer be a BSD license. > > The whole point of open-data licenses is that people can use the data > without having to get special permission from the government for each use > of the data. Some of the licenses used by Canadian governments in the past > had clauses that made them not open/suitable. It isn't clear to me what the > problem is with this license. > > > Steve > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
