[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

James james2432 at gmail.com
Sun Jan 22 17:48:04 UTC 2017


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" <steve at 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 at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20170122/8f005d36/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-ca mailing list