[Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 107, Issue 17

Bjenk Ellefsen bjenk.ellefsen at gmail.com
Sun Jan 22 13:33:00 UTC 2017


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-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
>    talk-ca at 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-request at openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    talk-ca-owner at 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" <scruss at gmail.com>
> To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada
> Message-ID: <6a9996a6-bed4-d85f-5b73-13dd1766c07c at 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.osm at gmail.com>
> To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: hebdoOSM Nº 339 10/01/2017-16/01/2017
> Message-ID: <5884668e.d5091c0a.30ed4.dd7b at 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 at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 107, Issue 17
> ****************************************



More information about the Talk-ca mailing list