"A piece of data or content is open if **anyone** is **free to use, reuse, and redistribute** it -- subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike." +> +>+ + + + + +[Read the full Open Definition »](/od/) + + + + diff --git a/_posts/2012-03-24-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-march-2012.markdown b/_posts/2012-03-24-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-march-2012.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ea37e52 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2012-03-24-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-march-2012.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +--- +author: rgrp +comments: true +date: 2012-03-24 15:09:02+00:00 +layout: post +slug: notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-march-2012 +title: Notes from Advisory Panel Meeting March 2012 +wordpress_id: 615 +categories: +- Meetings +--- + +## CALL LOGISTICS + +* When: Monday, 19th March 18:00 GMT +* Please note the times in the Doodle-poll are 18:00 GMT. +* Strict limit to one hour +* Where: Skype +* Back channel: #okfn IRC channel on irc.freenode.net +* Chair: Daniel Dietrich (Skype: ddie22) + +## PARTICIPANTS + +Confirmed: + +* Rufus Pollock (rufuspollock) +* Mike Linksvayer (mlinksva) +* Herb Lainchbury (herblainchbury) +* Daniel Dietrich (Skype: ddie22) +* Andrew Stott (Skype: dirdigeng) +* Jo Ellis (UK National Archives) (Skype: jo3ellis) +* David Eaves (david_a_eaves) + +## AGENDA + +* approval (or not) of UK OGL + * http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2011-December/000086.html may be last focused on UK OGL (subject then expands to OD clarification/update), also see previous in thread +* non-conformance of Irish PSI license -- see http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2011-July/000047.html +* Approval or not of Kenyan Open Data Policy (probably not conformant) + * See http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2011-November/000070.html +* updating of the OD itself, which has been done before (1.0 to 1.1) + * See http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-January/000096.html +* move EFF OAL from non-comformant/discontinued to conformant/deprecated as http://web.archive.org/web/20040603070029/http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal_version1.php is clearly conformant and having it listed on non-conformant page is confusing. Or remove all mention from site. +* http://licenses.opendefinition.org/ and associated repo + * https://github.com/okfn/licenses +* Update from David Eaves + +## NOTES + +opendefinition@okfn.org email alias (which can then be circulated to the advisory panel) +would like to see a published list of PDDL users + +## Actions + +* [DD/MH]: contact Kenyans re decision +* [RP]: definition into version control (suggestion: use markdown) +* [DD] make sure ML has access to wordpress site +* [DD] send notes to list and set up a regular call scheme +* [AS]: draft blog post about non-open open licenses on open data sistes + +### OGL + +Feedback on http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ clauses: + +* "ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any official status or that the Information Provider endorses you or your use of the Information;" + * This is fine, permitted by OKD: 6. Integrity. +* "ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source;" + * Problematic: Adds uncertainty and complexity without gaining any real benefit for the licensor (how would they enforce and can they not be addressed in some other form). + * "ensure" sounds burdensome, "official" is unclear, and "mislead" is ripe for abuse (should a licensor prevent certain uses). It also causes interoperability issues and paves the way for a myriad of minor, but cumulatively significant, restrictions that can ultimately significantly impede reuse. + * Additionally, introduces incompatibility with other open licenses. +* "ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003." + * Breaking the law is breaking the law, one doesn't need a provision in the license for this. Additionally, introduces incompatibility with other open licenses. +* "These terms have been aligned to be interoperable with any Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which covers copyright, and Open Data Commons Attribution License, which covers database rights and applicable copyrights." + * The problematic terms above make this statement ambiguous: though the UK OGL claims to be aligned with CC-BY and ODC-BY, it is not. The intention to be compatibile is wonderful; making the next version of UK OGL unambiguously OKD compliant is necessary (and most likely sufficient) for realizing this intent. + +End of feedback + +**Rights Clearing**: users are sometimes expected to respect the rights of third parties when in fact they are the least equipped to do so of all parties involved. i.e. if its onerous for a publisher to sort out the rights, its likely impossible for a consumer. + +As the OKD draws much from the OSD, which itself is based on the DFSG, I take license to call out the http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#tentacles_of_evil test. I think analogously, if an oppressive government comes to power, the OGL provides built-in excuses for suppression of uses of "open" information it finds disagreeable. Maybe this concern is over the top, just putting it out there. + +### Kenyan Open Data Policy + +All agreed that this was non-compliant. + +* No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor - Restriction of commercial use. + * non-conformant because of non-commercial restrictions + +### Version 1.2 of Open Definition + +* Clearer that adding restrictions is problematics and likely non-compliant +* Integrity + * See item 6 + * Integrity does not cover "misrepresentation or misuse" - these should not be part of an open license. When using data it can be assumed that users will comply with other relevant laws + +### Move EFF OAL +Unanimously agreed that: + +EFF OAL moved from non-conformant/discontinued to conformant/deprecated as http://web.archive.org/web/20040603070029/http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal_version1.php is clearly conformant and having it listed on non-conformant page is confusing. + +### Irish + +http://psi.gov.ie/files/2010/03/PSI-Licence.pdf is unaminously decided to be non-complaint for the following reasons: + +4..1.(4) conditions permissions on "not using the document" in three ways which make the license non-compliant: + + (a) for the principal purpose of advertising or promoting a particular product or service; + +Not compliant with OKD 8: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. + + (b) for an illegal, immoral, fraudulent or dishonest purpose or in support of the aforementioned purposes; + (d) generally in a manner which is likely to mislead others. + +These go beyond the restriction permitted by OKD 6: Integrity. Clauses such as these make permissions ambiguous, lend themselves to capriciuous enforcement, make compatibility with other open licenses problematic, and are generally superfluous in an open license, given that users generally must follow laws against fraud, etc. + +### Discussion of of 4(c) and Attribution re http://psi.gov.ie/files/2010/03/PSI-Licence.pdf + +What if one requires attribution but at the time non-endorsement. + +Andrew Stott: two examples, Met Office and New South Wales of things along these lines + +Andrew: if you perform the attribution requirement it would seem very hard for a licensor to claim that you are using their endorsement. + +### Andrew Stott + +* 72% of datasets on data.gov.nz are CC-By or better +* 41% of datasets on data.gov.nz are CC-By or better (once one excludes geodata) +* 34% ... + diff --git a/_posts/2012-11-27-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-september-2012.markdown b/_posts/2012-11-27-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-september-2012.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bfff9af --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2012-11-27-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-september-2012.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: false +date: 2012-11-27 16:25:37+00:00 +layout: post +slug: notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-september-2012 +title: Notes from Advisory Panel Meeting September 2012 +wordpress_id: 641 +categories: +- Meetings +--- + +## CALL LOGISTICS + +* When: Thursday, 6th September at 16:00 UTC / 17:00 BST / 18:00 CEST +* Strict limit to one hour +* Where: Skype +* Back channel: #okfn IRC channel on irc.freenode.net +* Chair: Daniel Dietrich (Skype: ddie22) + +Pad for note taking: http://opengovernmentdata.okfnpad.org/call + +## PARTICIPANTS +* Daniel Dietrich (Skype: ddie22) +* Mike Linksvayer (Skype: mlinksva) +* Andrew Stott (Skype: dirdigeng) (ok) +* Timothy Vollmer (Skype: timothyvollmer) +* Herb Lainchbury (Skype: herblainchbury) +* Alberto Abella (Skype: alberto_rooter) +* Francesca De Chiara (Skype: j.moreau) +* Baden Appleyard - AusGOAL.gov.au (Skype:badapple71) +* Pia Waugh (Skype: piawaugh) +* Jim Wretham (National Archives) +* Helen Darbishire (Access Info Europe) +* Chris Taggart (Skype: chrismtaggart) + +To participate please add your name and Skype ID to the pad! + +## AGENDA + +* Updates + * Introducing the Open Government Data timeline http://bit.ly/OGD-timeline as part of an wider attempt to map what is happening with release of open government data around the world (and initiatives related to it) + See more at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ji2pifZYSggdgp0Pe8s_vFNrZIvrgwB1OhYz0AdkGsc/edit# +* OD license issues + * following the debate from; http://opendefinition.okfnpad.org/conferencecall-summary + * Possible review & comments by the OD advisory council on a DRAFT german open government license +* CC 4.0 license update (if people are interested) + * see http://blog.okfn.org/2012/08/15/cc-license-version-4-0-helping-meet-the-needs-of-open-data-publishers-and-users/ + * http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 +* OKFestival last preparations + * http://okfestival.org/onlineschedule/ + * http://okfestival.okfnpad.org/OGP-debate +* Open Government Data Dashboard +* News +* AOB + +## NOTES + +### Open Government Data Dashboard + +* Agreed to disseminate spreadsheet to various civil society lists, including open data community, access to info community, including via the OGP process and the civil society around that +* Agreed that timeline important and also detailing what information is contained in any particular dataset +* Agreed to keep as spreadsheet rather than have as a Wiki +* OKF to introduce a tool / platform for the crowdsourcing of the significant events and progress made in the open data space. Events such as major government policy changes, new data catalogues being introduced, significant data release, new organizations forming, significant licenses being introduced, etc.. +* OKF may announce officially at the upcoming OKFestival + +* [Overview of the idea (quite technical)](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ji2pifZYSggdgp0Pe8s_vFNrZIvrgwB1OhYz0AdkGsc/edit) + +### OGL update + +Jim Wretham joined briefly. Hope was to have update re discussion of improvements to UK Open Government License but unfortunately tech issues intervened. Plan to follow up to find out how this is going + +### Open Definition update + +Discussion of revision to Open Definition as per Mike Linksvayer's proposal: + +> 12. License Must Not Impose Additional Restrictions +> +> The **license** must not place any additional restrictions or conditions on the access, use, reuse or redistribution of the data other than those explicitly described under this definition. +> +> *Comment: This clause is intended to clarify that presence of restrictions not specifically permitted above make a license non-open. Such restrictions are usually one or more of onerous, vague, unnecessary (for example, requiring following an unrelated law), and always harmful to compatibility among open licenses.* + +Agreed on this. + +ACTION: Mike Linksvayer to write up a brief explanation of reason for this new clause with reference to existing licenses where this has been issue. + +ACTION: Daniel document (spreadsheet?) - people we have contacted and any response. + +ACTION: Daniel + Mike: blog post about update and possibly (separate) re non-conformant licenses. + +RP comment: should we start recording terms and conditions / licenses in our git repo. +ML question: any relationship to json license project you launched some months ago? +ML: would like to merge I think! + +ACTION: Who? EFF OAL move on website (from non-comformant to comformant-historical) + + +### Open Government License in Germany + +Daniel requested assistance in reviewing a Germany specific license. All agreed to assist as needed. + +### OKFestival + +Daniel is going to introduce the Open Government Data timeline and ask for participation. + +### Discussion of new Indian Open Data Catalog + +* Andrew Stott: very vague license +* Chris Taggart: very little data there + +### News and Point of Information + +* Mike Linksvayer: some people using NC or ND and need to be clear not open +* RP/AS: Risk that people now rest on their laurels +* Chris Taggart: there is always variation across the "hype" cycle. Recall my somewhat pessimistic presentation from last years Open Government Data Camp +* Herb Lainchbury: seeing a lot of growing interest. Broadening out of the community. It is inevitable as we move along and as the community grows that there will be perhaps less overall velocity but more volume. We need to really consider scale when deciding how to focus our efforts as a community. The proposed dashboard is a good example of a scalable tool. E.g. focus more on webinars than hackathons. Should continue to measure. Tools like opendefinition are very important as they are very scalable and make it easy for us to provide feedback. Governments need continued feedback about how they are doing as that's at least in part what motivates them. +* Baden: lot of the open data portals kick off a bang (e.g. with a competition) and then things can get a lot harder. Big challenge is getting open data released can be hard. Lot of development going on in Australia. + + +## ACTION ITEMS + +* contact Jim Wretham (National Archives) about UK OGD License updates (Rufus + Andrew) +* send german OGD draft license to OD advisory council for review (Daniel) +* follow up Kenya OGD license compliance (Daniel) diff --git a/_posts/2012-12-03-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-december-2012.markdown b/_posts/2012-12-03-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-december-2012.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1128992 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2012-12-03-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-december-2012.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ +--- +author: mlinksva +comments: false +date: 2012-12-03 21:40:52+00:00 +layout: post +slug: notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-december-2012 +title: Notes from Advisory Panel Meeting December 2012 +wordpress_id: 681 +categories: +- Meetings +--- + +Monday, December 3, 2012 15:00 UTC +Chair: Mike Linksvayer + +# PARTICIPANTS +* Mike Linksvayer +* Daniel Dietrich +* Peter Suber +* Luis Villa +* Herb Lainchbury +* Rufus Pollock + +# AGENDA +* OD [AC] process/feedback +* Leftover Action Items + * OKD 1.2 explanation/post + * Spreadsheet for license [non-]compliance followups? + * UK OGL updates? +* Strategy + * Main barriers to OKD universal acceptance and world liberation that we can actually do something about; reflect in goals below +* 2013 Goals, Volunteers + * Document past decisions/rationales on website + * Document/public process for 2013 decisions + * Outreach/liaison with + * OER? + * OA? + * OSI + * Open Gov Data WG + * licenses.opendefinition.org updates/integration + * Other website info upgrade (eg open buttons guidance) + * OSSD +# NOTES +## Admin +* Consider Herb added, Mike chair per list discussion +## Process for License Conformance +Luis: will send some suggestions based on experience at OSI +Rufus: +1 +Rufus: Idea of using git and github ... +* would prefer decisions on-line/public email for documentation/transparency/legitimacy; calls for strategy/input/discussion. Maybe this has been the case anyway... +* Current process is described at http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ +* Luis will send some comments based on OSI experience +* Email list about outstanding license conformance decisions + rationale; give 2 weeks for +1 or objection (non-comformant: UK OGL, Ireland, Kenya, ?) +## Advisory Council participants +* Email to ask current members to see whether they wish to continue (and are able to contribute going forward) +* Those who want to step down we ask for any suggestions for replacements and add to emeritus list +## Advisory Council Process +* anyone welcome to attend +* decisions made by members of council +* license discussions are sometimes best held in the channel in which they start (mailing list) until such time as there are accepted changes - at which time it can move to something more technical / thoughtful and useful for archiving, such as git and markdown +## Follow-ups +* Ireland: no contact yet +* Kenya: sent notice but no response ... +* Germany: Draft license for German PSI https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dk68bfuEp8eDsgIDBSZuQAr07_YWnbjvr8s5CEZ-q4o/edit +Mike Linksvayer and Baden Appleyard commented on it and suggest that the default option "A" would be OD compliant if no additional limitations (as in IV. Further optional elements proposed for discussion) apply. Other options such as B, C and D are not compliant. Recommendation was given not to add any optional elements such as in IV. The German license will be published in January 2013 and used as standard license for PSI in the upcoming OGD portal. +* UK OGL: need to signal to update them re issues leading to non-conformance + * Email - Mike + Rufus + * May be a blog post +Daniel started a List of Licenses checked for compliance with Open Definition +https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApbQZxbNri2RdExrcDdIc2FveFVWWGdaM1ZNeW1XSFE&pli=1#gid=0 +## Strategy +Main barriers to OKD universal acceptance and world liberation that we can actually do something about; reflect in goals below +* Highlighting / Listing major users (e.g. governments) + * Recognition + * Peter Suber +1 Rufus +1 Daniel +1 + * Shows it would be lawful, it is permissible etc + * Getting the gold-star + * Point about making clear usage (from Luis) +* General communications + * A bit more on the updates side +* Connection with other groups +## Connection with other groups +* OGD WG - Mike + Daniel + * A post which we should share about government data licenses +* OSI +## Communications +* Email list draft announcement of OKD 1.2 + rationale; give 2 weeks for +1 or objection +* Blog updated AC list, conformance decisions, OKD 1.2 before end of year +## Open Software Service Definition +Need to consider whether this is a focus or whether we shelve it until such time as we can give them the time they need. +## Luis point +He is a lawyer but not the Open Definition's lawyer! Acknowledged by all. +# ACTIONS +* Mike: email current AC members +* DD: forward Kenya notice to the list ... DONE +* Mike + Rufus: email UK National Archives re OGL issues DONE +* Herb: Archiving versions of current licenses in markdown +* Mike + Herb: Posts + * A year in review and plans for next year + * Licenses we have seen, what we plan ... diff --git a/_posts/2012-12-17-open-definition-forges-ahead-get-involved.markdown b/_posts/2012-12-17-open-definition-forges-ahead-get-involved.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a5e3186 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2012-12-17-open-definition-forges-ahead-get-involved.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +--- +author: mlinksva +comments: false +date: 2012-12-17 17:58:28+00:00 +layout: post +slug: open-definition-forges-ahead-get-involved +title: Open Definition forges ahead - get involved! +wordpress_id: 715 +--- + +[Open Defintion](http://opendefinition.org) (OD) is one of the first projects that the the Open Knowledge Foundation created. Its purpose has been to provide, promote -- and protect -- a meaningful Open in Open Data and Open Content. + +It does this primarily through curating the [Open Knowledge Definition](http://opendefinition.org/okd) (OKD), working with license stewards to ensure new licenses intending to be open are clearly so, and keeping lists of licenses that conform to the OKD, and those that do not -- providing any entity intending to create an open project, or mandate "open" in policy, with a clear reference as to which licenses will achieve their aims. + +With the growth in "open" and especially of open data initiatives in the last few years there has been an increasing amount for the project to do especially in terms of reviewing and evaluating licenses. For 2013 we see several important areas of work: + +* [OKD v1.2](https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-knowledge-definition.markdown) -- we've seen license conditions cropping up that are certainly contrary to the spirit of the definition and implicitly non-conformant. It ought be possible for anyone with some understanding of public licenses to do a quick read of the definition and understand its meaning for a particular license without having to know all of the history of open definitions and licenses. + +* Review important new licenses and license versions for OKD compliance, e.g. Open Government License Canada, and version 4.0 of CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. + +* Moving linguistic translations into a git repository for better review and updating. + +* Improve explanations and graphics available on the OD site for anyone who wants to learn about open knowledge and services, and proudly announce to the world that their projects are open. + +* Extend our work on license APIs that provide information about open licenses at [licenses.opendefinition.org](http://licenses.opendefinition.org) and integrate with the main OD site; also look to cooperate with [other](https://spdx.org/licenses/) [projects](https://licensedb.org/) providing Linked Open Data about licenses. + +* Provide regular updates about OD work to the broader OKFN network, open communities, and general public. + +* Develop a version git-based repository of license texts so they can be tracked over time + +* Growing out of discussions in [2006](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2006-October/000177.html) and [2007](http://blog.okfn.org/2007/07/18/we-need-an-open-service-definition/), the OD project developed the [Open Software Service Definition](http://opendefinition.org/software-service/) (OSSD), recognizing the complementarity of open content and data (knowledge) and open source web platforms and other network services that open knowledge is created, curated, and distributed on. The OSSD hasn't been touched in a long time, but software services (some of them called "the cloud") have become more important than ever, including in domains nearest to the OKFN community's most active work, such as platforms used by and for open government. Shall we update the OSSD and revitalize evangelism for open services, or declare not a core competency, and look to other groups to take leadership? + +If you're a legal or policy expert, software freedom advocate, linked data hacker, translator, designer, communications maven -- and want to go "meta" about openness, we could use your help! Join the [od-discuss mailing list](http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss) and pitch into the discussion, start a new one, or lurk until you're ready. + +Final decisions about license conformance and definition updates are made by the [Open Definition Advisory Council](http://opendefinition.org/advisory-council/). This is not a big time commitment, but it is a big responsibility. If you'd like to join the AC someday, join [od-discuss](http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss) today. + +We're especially keen to have AC members from every continent. Currently we only have Europe and North America, and recognize that's a big problem for the long-term impact of the Open Definition project. Especially if you're from the global South and care about the fundamentals of openness, please join od-discuss and [get in touch](http://opendefinition.org/contact/)! diff --git a/_posts/2013-01-31-ogl-canada-proposal-feedback.markdown b/_posts/2013-01-31-ogl-canada-proposal-feedback.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6372166 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2013-01-31-ogl-canada-proposal-feedback.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +--- +author: mlinksva +comments: false +date: 2013-01-31 21:40:15+00:00 +layout: post +slug: ogl-canada-proposal-feedback +title: Feedback on Canada's proposed Open Government Licence Agreement +wordpress_id: 733 +categories: +- PSI +--- + +Below is feedback submitted today on behalf of the Open Definition Advisory Council regarding Canada's proposed Open Government Licence Agreement. Thanks especially to Andrew Stott for substantial contributions to this feedback, Herb Lainchbury (currently the AC's sole Canadian member; also see his [personal blog entry on OGL-C](http://www.herblainchbury.com/2012/12/my-submission-open-government-license.html)) for pushing the AC on the pertinent issues over the past year, and Tracey Lauriault for bringing the comment period for the OGL-C to our attention. + +... + +Thank you for opportunity to provide feedback on the [Proposed Open Government Licence Agreement](http://www.data.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=0D3F42BD-1). + +The [Open Knowledge Definition](http://opendefinition.org/okd) (OKD) sets out principles to define ‘openness’ in relation to content and data such that the "open" in open access, data, education, and government remains meaningful and interoperable. The OKD is led by an international [Advisory Council](http://opendefinition.org/advisory-council). + +We congratulate you for your excellent work. In particular we commend the absence of the two most problematic items found in the [OGL-UK](https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/) ("ensure that you do not mislead..." and "ensure that your use of the Information does not breach [data protection and privacy acts]"); such terms are redundant and harm interoperability. + +A similar, further improvement we suggest is to move "ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any official status or that the Information Provider endorses you or your use of the Information" from a licence condition to an exemption. This subtle change would ensure OKD compliance, and remove an unnecessary barrier to interoperability with other open licences. + +Finally, we have three comments about items in the exemptions section: + + 1. "This Licence does not grant you any right to use: ... Information subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents and trademarks." This might be placed even more strongly in the exemption category if merely stating that no patents are trademark permissions are granted, rather than removing any right to use information subject to any of these. + 2. It is unclear what "does not grant you any right to use...domain names of the Licensor;" means; control of a domain name is orthogonal to data licensing, and limitations on linking to URLs in a domain are harmful to an open Internet. To the extent that there needs to be protection it is already covered by the generic statement on trademarks. + 3. The complete exclusion of "personal data" raises the issue of personal data which is a matter of public record, for instance the names of senior officials or the names of Directors in a company registry. This is also an issue in OGL-UK. Some of these downstream uses may constitute "unfair processing" in terms (in the UK) of the Data Protection Act (eg using the data for a junk mailing list), but that is a matter for general law not the licence. At the moment the licence would seem not to cover any use of personal data such as published names. + +We are available to expand on our suggestions as needed and to continue to help the Government of Canada on the drafting of the licence. + +Sincerely, +Open Definition Advisory Council +opendefinition@okfn.org diff --git a/_posts/2013-08-03-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-june-2013.markdown b/_posts/2013-08-03-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-june-2013.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..52402d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2013-08-03-notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-june-2013.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,267 @@ +--- +author: mlinksva +comments: false +date: 2013-08-03 20:19:12+00:00 +layout: post +slug: notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-june-2013 +title: Notes from Advisory Panel Meeting June 2013 +wordpress_id: 816 +categories: +- Meetings +--- + +14 June 2013 + +##Participants + +* Baden Appleyard +* Jo Ellis +* Herb Lainchbury +* Mike Linksvayer (chair) +* Peter Murray-Rust +* Rufus Pollock +* Andrew Stott + +##Agenda + +1. Release of O[K]D 1.2; see [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000428.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000428.html) + +2. OKD or OD for the main definition name; see [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000427.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000427.html) + +3. Disposition of OSSD (software service); see [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000429.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000429.html) + +4. Outstanding review/notice of existing licenses + + 1. 3 very similar licenses: + + 1. UK OGLv2.0 with formal conformance request (live update on this if representative is on call) [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000424.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000424.html) + + 2. OGL Canada 2.0 with formal request [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000425.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000425.html) our feedback on an earlier draft at [http://opendefinition.org/2013/01/31/ogl-canada-proposal-feedback/](http://opendefinition.org/2013/01/31/ogl-canada-proposal-feedback/) + + 3. OGL Alberta 2.0 informally forwarded to list for comments [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000415.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000415.html) + + 2. Datenlizenz Deutschland; we sent feedback, Daniel can update on response if on call; see [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000382.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000382.html) + + 3. City of Calgary Open Data License requested approval; discussion uncovered various problems; offer of more formal feedback not replied to [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000374.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000374.html) should we issue formal non-conformance notice? + +5. Enhancing the submission and review process for licenses (including publication of results) + + 4. Add proliferation policy? [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000373.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000373.html) + + 5. Other suggestions? Re publication, blog each accept/reject? Where? + +6. Does anyone want to work on licenses.opendefinition.org? See [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000414.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000414.html) for some random thoughts. + +7. Future AC membership; zero members in global south unacceptable. Suggestions for invitation? + +8. Start thinking about who wants to/should chair in 2014 + +9. Reminder to look over published bios + +10. Other outreach/collaboration + +## Call Notes + +### 1. Release of O[K]D 1.2; see [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000428.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000428.html) + +* RP: +1 on this. Perfect world we will get a diff in github for review. + +* ML: review of CC BY/BY-SA 4.0 for OD compliance + + * ACTION: HL to review with support from Andrew + +* ML: we should reach out to Open Access + Open Education + + * RP: [ACTION: RP] I can ask Ross Mounce for Open Access + + * Open Education: [ACTION: Baden] Delia Browne in Australia + +* ACTION: HL to review + +### 2. OKD or OD for the main definition name; see [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000427.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000427.html) + +* RP: Open Definition [for Data / Content / Knowledge] seems good. + + * URL: [http://opendefinition.org/current/](http://opendefinition.org/current/) (or latest)? + +* Baden / Herb / Andrew: like breadth, simplicity of "Open Definition" + +**DECISION: Open Definition by default.** + +### 3. Disposition of OSSD (software service); see [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000429.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000429.html) + +Mike: In light of all this, how about this plan for the current term: +* Continue with non-prominence of the OSSD on the site +* I'll prepare a minor update which just makes the page more presentable and send here for confirmation +* Participants may or may not wish to re-evaluate in the next term (eg a new chair in 2014, or some other definition of "term") + +* RP: I'm happy for keeping but not highlighting atm + +* RP: this is very important but we are not prioritizing atm + +**DECISION: as per Mike's suggestions** + +### 4. Outstanding review/notice of existing licenses + +*UK OGLv2.0 with formal conformance request (live update on this if representative is on call) **[http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000424.htm*l](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000424.html) + +* RP: special appreciation to the process the National Archives has gone through on this + +* ALL: this appears to be conformant and a great improvement on the previous version. + +* **DECISION: this will go to a final vote on list once we have an absolutely final version. Advice right now is this is conformant.** + +OGL Canada 2.0 with formal request [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000425.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000425.html) our feedback on an earlier draft at [http://opendefinition.org/2013/01/31/ogl-canada-proposal-feedback/](http://opendefinition.org/2013/01/31/ogl-canada-proposal-feedback/) + +OGL Alberta 2.0 informally forwarded to list for comments [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000415.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000415.html) + +* HL: OGL Alberta being used in the wild + +* ML: let's ping them re fact there will be an update to OGL original + +* **ACTION: HL you are going to review UK new version and compare with the OGL Canada + OGL Alberta and report to list** + +Datenlizenz Deutschland; we sent feedback, Daniel can update on response if on call; see [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000382.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000382.html) + +* **ACTION: [ML] Ping Daniel on list. Short summary of where we are at and can we publish the formal letter on the site news.** + +City of Calgary Open Data License requested approval; discussion uncovered various problems; offer of more formal feedback not replied to [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000374.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000374.html) should we issue formal non-conformance notice? + +* RP: Let's do it + +* **ACTION: [HL] draft feedback post (markdown) and circulate to list for review** + +### 5. Enhancing the submission and review process for licenses (including publication of results) + +1. Add proliferation policy? [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000373.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000373.html) + +* RP: strongly support this. + + * Explicitly: duplication is a reason to be resistant to reviewing conformance. + + * Require a statement of motivation and difference when someone submits a license + + * If they press we would not refuse to to conformance + + * Specific category of "recommended" licenses (versus non-recommended) + +* ML: cf opensource.org process + +* ACTION: [ML] ping back to Kent on list + +2. Other suggestions? Re publication, blog each accept/reject? Where? + +New process + +* Open an issue on github - [https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/new](https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/new) + +* AND / OR Email the mailing list + + * If you really can't do either of these [opendefinition@okfn.org](mailto:opendefinition@okfn.org) + +ACTION: [ML] update [http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/](http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/) as per this + + Also correct ref to open source definition + +ACTION: Add a menu item for process to top menu. Add info at top of licenses page to link to process. + +ACTION: [RP] - merge licenses repo - see [https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/7](https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/7) + +ACTION: [RP] - plan for storing license texts - [https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/2](https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/2) + +### 6. Does anyone want to work on licenses.opendefinition.org? See [http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000414.html](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000414.html) for some random thoughts. + +* Does anyone rely on the specific json published at +licenses.opendefinition.org? This may say something about how careful +to be. + +A few people. + +* is_okd_compliant and is_osi_compliant seem suboptimal names. OKD and +OSI aren't equivalents and "compliant" is vague; only "approved" would +be unambiguous. Can these be changed? Noticed via +[https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/12](https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/12) + +AGREED: change to od_approved, osi_approved + +ACTION: [ML+RP] check with users + +What does domain_content/data/software actually mean? Whatever the +license creator says? What informed wisdom agrees with? What people +do? What bodies have approved licenses? Noticed via +[https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/15](https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/15) + + + +* If UK OGL is really intended to be used with software -- also via +[https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/15](https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/15) -- should we not be +recommending vetting by OSI? And/or depending on the meaning of +"domain" per above, maybe not marking it as a software license. + +RP: They really should go via OSI then + +* How are versions expected to be reflected in json published at +licenses.opendefinition.org? Right now, they aren't. If were used in +building a chooser, as suggested on the site, what would choosing say + +* What are the 3 "other" licenses in +[http://licenses.opendefinition.org/#all-licenses](http://licenses.opendefinition.org/#all-licenses) about? I can't figure +out why their compliance statuses are listed as they are. + +* It seems a pity to not use the same short identifiers as +[https://spdx.org/licenses/](https://spdx.org/licenses/) ... and probably easier, to link to the +spdx page for each license. + +RP: we could + +* I think it'd be grand to get opendefinition.org out of wordpress, +but not a pressing need. Anyone eager to do the work? + +AGREED: this can wait. + +* Could opendefinition.org be made unambiguously open again? +[https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/12](https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/12) :-/ + +7. Future AC membership; zero members in global south unacceptable. Suggestions for invitation? + +* RP: Big +1 here + +* Suggest various people to invite: + + * ACTION: [AS] World Bank person + + * data.gov / US Gov + + * Global south + + * data.gov.in + + * dados.gov.br (RP can intro) + + * any other orgs we can think of + + * Moldova: [AS] follow up to see if there is someone + + * Russia: [AS] + + * Someone from UK National Archives + + * ACTION: [ML?] would you follow up with Jo Ellis + + * Research councils + +ML: do we have a standard invite template? + +A: nearly; what I used for most recent invites, will send to Andrew, Rufus + +### 8. Start thinking about who wants to/should chair in 2014 + +### 9. Reminder to look over published bios + +[http://opendefinition.org/advisory-council/](http://opendefinition.org/advisory-council/) + +this is a wordpress site + +### 10. Other outreach/collaboration + +* Follow up with OpenSource.org + Luis - cf [http://opensource.org/minutes20130306](http://opensource.org/minutes20130306) diff --git a/_posts/2013-08-08-notes-from-open-definition-call-august-2013.markdown b/_posts/2013-08-08-notes-from-open-definition-call-august-2013.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d21eed1 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2013-08-08-notes-from-open-definition-call-august-2013.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +--- +author: mlinksva +comments: false +date: 2013-08-08 18:10:46+00:00 +layout: post +slug: notes-from-open-definition-call-august-2013 +title: Notes from Open Definition call August 2013 +wordpress_id: 818 +categories: +- Meetings +--- + +Previous call [notes](http://opendefinition.org/2013/08/03/notes-from-advisory-panel-meeting-june-2013/). Next call October 10 (2nd Thursday of even months) at 15:00 UTC. + +# Participants + +* Baden Appleyard +* Herb Lainchbury +* Tom Lee +* Mike Linksvayer (chair) +* Kent Mewhort +* Peter Murray-Rust + +#Agenda/Notes + +##Open Definition 1.2 + +* Name (OD, not OKD), [copyedit](https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/compare/20e6671...1093d04#diff-8) done; no comments during call, on-list welcome +* Will CC BY/BY-SA be compliant? If not, feedback to them and/or on definition +* ACTION: HL to post snippets of CC4 for discussion as required +* ACTION: ML see if there is scope/people to raise at CC summit + +##OSSD + +* ML does not have page cleanup discussed ready for deep storage, if move to October + +##Outstanding review of existing licenses + +* Alberta and British Columbia + * Detailed discussion deferred to October, as some from AB and BC who wish to participate are on vacation. + * ACTION: KM to review OD for whether concerns about complex and uncertain exemptions should be addressed directly +* Calgary + * ACTION: HL to send draft letter for Calgary to the list and if there are no objections within a week then he will send to Calgary +* Datalizenz + * DD at Wikimania; deferred to October +* Open Game License + * [Proposed on-list](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-July/000525.html), discuss + * Feeling outside of OD expertise, perhaps scope. We will probably not address OGL unless additional case made to do so on-list. + * ACTION: ML to say above on-thread +* Others? + * UK Parliament, HK mentioned on-list, not formally proposed + * HK clearly non-conformant, but will discuss how to provide useful feedback next call + * BA pointed out http://www.ags.gov.au/pal/ to be discussed in future + +##OD site/data/repository + +* HL - we are about ½ way through adding the conformant licenses to the repository +* ML proposed that HL, ML, RP and KM get together separately (or as a topic of next regular call) to discuss overlaps and synergies between Kent’s license project and the repo that we’re creating on github. + * ACTION: ML to put on agenda for next regular call; if others wish to have discussion before then, propose datetime... + +##New OD AC members + +* Leigh Dodds, Kent Mewhort joining, welcome + * ACTION: ML to add to site, send welcome mail to list, will also mention below +* Follow up on potential members from unrepresented areas, concrete suggestions wanted, to be raised again next call diff --git a/_posts/2013-10-16-notes-from-open-definition-call-october-2013.markdown b/_posts/2013-10-16-notes-from-open-definition-call-october-2013.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cabf96a --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2013-10-16-notes-from-open-definition-call-october-2013.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ +--- +author: mlinksva +comments: false +date: 2013-10-16 19:32:10+00:00 +layout: post +slug: notes-from-open-definition-call-october-2013 +title: Notes from Open Definition call October 2013 +wordpress_id: 830 +categories: +- Meetings +--- + +Previous call [notes](http://opendefinition.org/2013/08/08/notes-from-open-definition-call-august-2013/). Next call December 12 (2nd Thursday of even months) at 15:00 UTC. + +#Participants + +* Baden Appleyard +* Leigh Dodds +* Herb Lainchbury +* Mike Linksvayer +* Max Merret +* Kent Mewhort +* Rufus Pollock +* Luis Villa +* David Wrate + +#Agenda/Notes + +#Agenda + +##FYI + +Two posts by Laura James about OD on the main OKF blog + +* +* +* And a third post-call + +## License review + +###OGL AB License and BC Licenses + +David Wrate (Province of BC) began with a discussion of the BC license, asked for clarification on what the issues are with the BC license. + +Herb began with a discussion of two main points that included 1) the difficulty in determining the applicability of the license because of the additional exemption clause, 2) the thought that someone might think that their use of a work + +Kent reiterated by saying that the issue is just with the one clause, which is the exemption. + +DW: discussed the province’s point of view about the concern about releasing information, perhaps in error, and then not having any recourse to get the data back. The province sees the FOI act that they have included in their license as a mechanism to resolve these issues. + +BA: Clause 6 strikes me as a checklist for government officials to consider before releasing information, rather than being a necessary addition to a licence? + +LV: sympathizes but it isn’t clear how this helps - surely one has recourse via the other acts. + +DW: Fewer exemptions we have the better it is for everybody + +RP: Comments on Baden’s typed in question : “What safeguard is there where material may have accidentally been released prior to the existence of this licence?” + +**ACTION: a policy position on exception / exemption** + +LV: why not use the generic “applicable laws apply” (after all, does not mean much since, yes, applicable laws apply). Better than having each individual law written into it. + +DW: To answer the direct question: “What safeguard is there where material may have accidentally been released prior to the existence of this licence?” + +There are provisions with the FOI Act that address the inappropriate release of material: Section 74.1 is fairly clear. + +The purpose of the license is to grant permissions for the use of information covered by the license, identify what information is not covered by the license and broadly outline what is not permissible under the license. + +The intent of the FOI exception in the OGL-BC exists solely to provide clarity about what material you have rights to use. The Act was named because: + +* the Province has one piece of legislation which clearly describes this what information is available, and +* Because clarity on what data can be used helps achieve the goal of people using data. + +Previous threads on the mailing list have noted that the Exceptions clause of the OGL is less than ideal because it creates uncertainty about whether the data can be used. If we can agree that jurisdictions have organizational risks they must manage for an open data program to exist, stating which law identifies material which cannot be covered by the license helps manage a risk. + +That risk is further managed with policy and processes that provide checks and balances in the data publishing process to ensure that the Exceptions are never invoked. + +I agree that a statement of “applicable laws” would encompass the FOI legislation. It also introduces a degree of uncertainty for users about which other laws might also apply. + +I argue that a more general clause actually works against open because it give a licensor the potential to find other legislative ways to revoke the license. This potential has been discussed at length online; the outcomes of those discussions tend to favour a more precise description of what is not available for license. + +###Australia + +The Australian Government Solictor Public Access Licences. (The AGS is not part of the Australian Government, it is a law firm that can only take federal government agencies as clients, and was formerly part of the Australian Government Attorney-Generals Department). Discussions within the Australian Government continue with respect to these licences and whether or not they are appropriate. + +###Open Game License + +**ACTION: start on-list approval process for license, with proviso that no "Product Identity" included, and if approved, put license in little-used/not-recommended category.** + +## Open Definition 1.2 + +Next steps, if any, before making 1.2 final/current, or alternate strategy http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-October/000635.html + +**ACTION: split out minor changes from major substantive change (section 12)** + +**ACTION: review section 12 discussion on list (using a google doc as for commenting)** + +**ACTION: continue to explore work/license split** + +## OSSD + +Cleaned up version for freeze will not be ready; revisit in December + +## OD repository/API/etc and clipol.org (and other related projects?) + +**ACTION: explore repositories for license texts and license metadata which can be collaborated on across projects and included in projects as git submodules.** + +## AC membership + +A few people considering if they could be OD AC chair in 2014. diff --git a/_posts/2013-12-04-open-definition-and-license-proliferation.markdown b/_posts/2013-12-04-open-definition-and-license-proliferation.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b75d355 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2013-12-04-open-definition-and-license-proliferation.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +--- +author: mlinksva +comments: true +date: 2013-12-04 03:55:37+00:00 +layout: post +slug: open-definition-and-license-proliferation +title: Open Definition and License Proliferation +wordpress_id: 835 +categories: +- PSI +--- + +License proliferation increases costs for publishers and users (more licenses to understand, evaluate, and comply with) and fractures the commons through incompatibility and non-open terms. The [Open Definition Advisory Council](http://opendefinition.org/advisory-council/) and others have noted a surge in jurisdiction, sub-jurisdiction, and sector specific licenses intended for government data, or more generally, Public Sector Information (PSI). + +Read recent posts by AC members [Leigh Dodds](http://theodi.org/blog/the-proliferation-of-open-government-licences) and [Mike Linksvayer](http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2013/11/24/ugl/), and highlighting the same issues in response to a European Commission consultation on PSI, from the [Communia Association](http://www.communia-association.org/2013/11/25/responding-to-the-european-commission-consultation-on-psi-minimizing-restrictions-maximizes-re-use/) and [Creative Commons](https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40741). + +A few themes you'll notice across those posts: + +* The harm of license proliferation +* Public domain as the ideal policy for PSI +* Open Definition compliance as a harm reduction strategy, where public domain is not the default and new licenses are created + +The last has been very much on the minds of AC members, and has informed our feedback on new PSI licenses in development (the OGL UK 2.0 is a [notable success](http://blog.okfn.org/2013/07/01/uk-open-government-license-is-now-compliant-with-the-open-definition/)) and the approval process for new PSI licenses developed without our feedback. + +It is also informing the [development](https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/commits/master/source/open-definition-dev.markdown) of Open Definition 2.0, which will not be a substantive change. Open will still be best [summed up](http://opendefinition.org) as "anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike." But it is an opportunity to make the definition easier to read, and either through recommendations embedded in the definition, or stressed further in the approval process -- discourage license proliferation and encourage whatever new license are developed to be maximally open and compatible with existing licenses. + +If you'd like to help give feedback to license proposals, vet licenses submitted for conformance, and help write OD 2.0 and improve our process, please [join od-discuss](https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss). If your government is developing a bespoke license, tell them to *please* [consult](http://opendefinition.org/contact/) with the Open Definition Advisory Council! diff --git a/_posts/2013-12-13-notes-from-open-definition-call-december-2013.markdown b/_posts/2013-12-13-notes-from-open-definition-call-december-2013.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..df134be --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2013-12-13-notes-from-open-definition-call-december-2013.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +--- +author: mlinksva +comments: true +date: 2013-12-13 01:24:22+00:00 +layout: post +slug: notes-from-open-definition-call-december-2013 +title: Notes from Open Definition call December 2013 +wordpress_id: 837 +categories: +- Meetings +--- + +Previous call [notes](http://opendefinition.org/2013/10/16/notes-from-open-definition-call-october-2013/). Next call 2014-02-13 (2nd Thursday of even months) at 15:00 UTC. + +#Participants + +* Herb Lainchbury +* Tom Lee +* Mike Linksvayer +* Rufus Pollock +* Andrew Stott +* Kat Walsh + +#Agenda/Notes + +#Agenda + +## New Open Definition Advisory Council chair for 2014 + +Herb Lainchbury! As discussed [on-list](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-December/000743.html). + +Herb stated eagerness to improve the approval process. Mike will send to the list lessons learned from 2013. Biggest impression was that approval process works much better when it is more: license creators engage with the Advisory Council during license development. When a license is "thrown over the wall", ambiguities not evident to the creators make approval difficult at best. + +## Open Definition 2.0 + +Walkthrough and structure of [current draft](https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-dev.markdown). Comments and action items: + +* Rewrite introduction, highlight principle anyone/any purpose, possibly scope some way other than defining "knowledge". + * ACTION: Mike to draft. +* Each item in definition should begin with stating the principle of the item, full stop. Examples should be clearly non-exhaustive. + * ACTION: open for a volunteer! +* Headings should be consistent -- now some are one-word, others more prescriptive on their own. All prescriptive is a good goal, allowing a skimmer of headings to basically understand. + * ACTION: Herb to attempt bringing all to consistent, prescriptive state. +* Suggestion from Karl Fogel for an explicit statement about what permissions a license must require in order to protect licensee privacy. Discussion of whether this in practice is a license issue, or deployment/access/work issue. Registration/identification requirements seen in government data portals and their ToS, not quite the same thing. + * ACTION: Mike to start discussion on-list, invite Karl to elaborate. +* Discussion of how to address [license proliferation](http://opendefinition.org/2013/12/04/open-definition-and-license-proliferation/) in Open Definition 2.0, which is most powerful place to make a statement. We want to encourage only licenses that are good for the ecosystem, but not go so far as saying that a redundant license that is unambiguously open is not Open. How do we encourage folks developing indended-to-be-open licenses to engage early in their policy thinking -- before the actual policy is established? + * IDEA: Add a before-license-completed section to the [approval process](http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/), encouraging would-be stewards of new licenses to consult with the Advisory Council. + * IDEA: Outreach to potential license stewards, such that they learn of the Open Definition process before they have completed their licenses. Nobody in the "open" community wants more redundant licenses, each with own problems. What can OKFN and other organizations do to inform local activists and other networks that potential stewards might come in contact with early? + * ACTION: Mike to start a thread on the list about non-proliferation of license(s) and how we might encourage the "right thing" in the OD. + * ACTION: Herb to propose pre-completion process addition. + +## License review + +### CC-BY-4.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0 + +No questions. Formal conformance vote will begin on-list in next day. The 4.0 licenses are much easier to read, read them: [CC-BY-4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode) and [CC-BY-SA-4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode). + +### Alberta, British Columbia OGLs, GeoLicence V1.2.1-Open + +Revisit after release of Open Definition 2.0. See new on-list discussion: [Provincial OGLs](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-December/thread.html#730), [GeoLicence](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-December/000729.html) + +## Tech + +Defer discussion to on-line. See especially Engel Nyst's contributions, including comment on [licenses and opendefinition repositories](https://github.com/okfn/licenses/issues/30). diff --git a/_posts/2013-12-28-od-2013.markdown b/_posts/2013-12-28-od-2013.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9ea6e4e --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2013-12-28-od-2013.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +--- +author: mlinksva +comments: true +date: 2013-12-28 05:50:55+00:00 +layout: post +slug: od-2013 +title: 'Open Definition 2013: assessment and lessons' +wordpress_id: 844 +--- + +Throughout 2013 fields such as open access, open data, open education, open government, and more saw unprecedented growth as policy and practice. The [Open Definition](http://opendefinition.org) played increasingly important and visible roles in fostering a shared understanding of "open" and helping increase interoperability and other best practices in implementation of open licenses. + +The Open Definition is governed by an [Advisory Council](http://opendefinition.org/advisory-council/), which primarily conducts itself on the [public od-discuss mailing list](https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss). The council's 2014 chair is [Herb Lainchbury](http://www.herblainchbury.com/). Some thoughts on 2013 from [outgoing](http://opendefinition.org/2013/12/13/notes-from-open-definition-call-december-2013/) chair Mike Linksvayer... + +##Lessons + +1. The license approval process works much better when it is more than just assessing whether a license conforms with the Open Definition -- when license creators engage with the Advisory Council during license development. When a license is "thrown over the wall", ambiguities not evident to the creators make approval difficult at best. This probably means the OD community needs to get help from the broader [Open Knowledge Foundation](http://okfn.org) (OKF) and other "open" communities to spread awareness of the OD. Nobody in these communities *wants* more questionably open and probably incompatible licenses. How can we, for example, increase the probability that local activists know about the OD and can educate public sector officials they might come into contact with, before new licenses are developed? +2. We already knew that the OD ought be made explicit about some issues OD 1.1 only implied answers to, hence work on OD 1.2 beginning in 2012. In 2013 we learned (at least I did) that a more substantial rewrite could also make the OD more understandable, and help us grapple with areas of uncertainty about what is good for the open ecosystem, and how the OD and/or the license approval process might help. Thus OD 2.0, in progress. +3. All recent AC members have been personally invited to join. To expand global representation on the AC (see last assessment item below), personal invitations will be needed. + +##Assessment (and other notes) + +At the end of 2012 I identified [several important areas of work for the next yerar](http://opendefinition.org/2012/12/17/open-definition-forges-ahead-get-involved/): + + + +
OKD v1.2 — we’ve seen license conditions cropping up that are certainly contrary to the spirit of the definition and implicitly non-conformant. It ought be possible for anyone with some understanding of public licenses to do a quick read of the definition and understand its meaning for a particular license without having to know all of the history of open definitions and licenses.+ + + +We decided to skip a clarifying OD 1.2 in favor of a rewrite, OD 2.0, in progress. 2.0 will not change the spirit of the definition, but will be even more clarifying, easy to understand (e.g., separating requirements for open licenses and open works), and provide guidance issues important to developing a healthy open ecosystem (e.g., interoperability and [proliferation](http://opendefinition.org/2013/12/04/open-definition-and-license-proliferation/)) in the most powerful and visible venue we have -- the definition text. + +We did not meet this objective in 2013, but the result (OD 2.0) in 2014 should be more impactful than previously aspired to. + +By the way, we dropped "Knowledge" from the name of the definition in deference to how the OKFn staff and close community refer to the definition. + + + +
Review important new licenses and license versions for OKD compliance, e.g. Open Government License Canada, and version 4.0 of CC-BY and CC-BY-SA.+ + + +The biggest news in this department was probably the [approval of the new OGL UK 2.0](http://blog.okfn.org/2013/07/01/uk-open-government-license-is-now-compliant-with-the-open-definition/), which the OD community had given substantial feedback on over the course of two years. Kudos to the UK National Archives team! + +We also gave [feedback on OGL Canada](http://opendefinition.org/2013/01/31/ogl-canada-proposal-feedback/) and [approved](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-July/000526.html) the license. While this was a positive development, we did not anticipate a proliferation of Canadian provincial and municipal licenses, each a variation on the federal license. We appreciate the engagement of federal and provincial staff and Canadian open data activists with the OD community and look forward to continuing this in 2014, particularly after OD 2.0 is finished. + +At the end of 2013 we [approved](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-December/000770.html) the recently [released](https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40768) CC-BY-4.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0. This approval was expected (previous versions were approved), thus not the biggest news. But I'm happy that we took the new versions through the normal approval process rather than letting them slide through, potentially with rough edges we would not accept from a new license steward. And one potential problem was [raised](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-September/000615.html) in discussion on the od-discuss list and [fixed](http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-September/007450.html) by CC. + +Some license conformance discussions have been outstanding for a long time, and probably will remain so. I'm fine with this: a bad decision is far worse than none in this context. + + + +
Moving linguistic translations into a git repository for better review and updating.+ + + +Done: current [instructions](http://opendefinition.org/participate/#translation). However, translations must be manually copied into WordPress, which is used to serve the OD site. + +For this and other reasons I would prefer the whole site be static, all content in a public source repository. But, such a migration would take some work, and wasn't on the agenda for 2013. + + + +
Improve explanations and graphics available on the OD site for anyone who wants to learn about open knowledge and services, and proudly announce to the world that their projects are open.+ + + +Not done at all, though rather important. If anyone wishes to take it up, the OD [buttons](http://opendefinition.org/buttons/) page has some material that could be used. Again, a static site might make collaboration on updates easier. + + + +
Extend our work on license APIs that provide information about open licenses at licenses.opendefinition.org and integrate with the main OD site; also look to cooperate with other projects providing Linked Open Data about licenses.+ + +and + + +
Develop a version git-based repository of license texts so they can be tracked over time.+ + +On one hand, almost no concrete progress was made extending [licenses.opendefinition.org](http://licenses.opendefiniton.org). On the other hand, I'm very pleased that we're progressing on working with [clipol.org](http://clipol.org/) (run by AC member Kent Mewhort) on common data needed for both sites, and about recent contributions by [Engel Nyst](https://github.com/enyst), who is very familiar with related work done for open source software licenses (e.g., [SPDX](https://spdx.org/licenses/)), and helping us build on that. + + + +
Provide regular updates about OD work to the broader OKFN network, open communities, and general public.+ + + +In February I posted on the main OKF blog about the OD's role in [protecting the foundations of Open Knowledge](http://blog.okfn.org/2013/02/13/protecting-the-foundations-of-open-knowledge/) and in March on Open (per the OD of course) [and the 'next great copyright act'](http://blog.okfn.org/2013/03/20/open-and-the-next-great-copyright-act/). + +In October OKF CEO Laura James posted a 3-part series about OD on the main OKF blog: + +* [Defining Open Data](http://blog.okfn.org/2013/10/03/defining-open-data/) +* [Exploring openness and the Open Definition](http://blog.okfn.org/2013/10/07/exploring-the-open-definition/) +* [The Open Definition in context: putting open into practice](http://blog.okfn.org/2013/10/16/open-definition-in-context/) + +Highlighting the role of the OD on the main OKF blog is great, and ought continue at opportune junctures, we didn't do much more to provide updates to the wider community -- a few cross-posts to the [open-government list](https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government), and a previously linked announcement about OGL UK 2.0 conformance. + +Recurring items that might be publicized to other lists as relevant, and perhaps whatever social media venues OKF typically uses: + +* Announcement of impending 2 week formal approval vote for new licenses +* Announcement of license conformance approval decisions +* Bi-monthly OD telecon notes +* New OD translations +* New AC members +* Other significant OD website/API updates + +Each positive license conformance decision might also be posted to the main OKF blog. + + + +
Growing out of discussions in 2006 and 2007, the OD project developed the Open Software Service Definition (OSSD), recognizing the complementarity of open content and data (knowledge) and open source web platforms and other network services that open knowledge is created, curated, and distributed on. The OSSD hasn’t been touched in a long time, but software services (some of them called “the cloud”) have become more important than ever, including in domains nearest to the OKFN community’s most active work, such as platforms used by and for open government. Shall we update the OSSD and revitalize evangelism for open services, or declare not a core competency, and look to other groups to take leadership?+ + + +We [decided](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000429.html) to keep the [OSSD](http://opendefinition.org/software-service/) on the site, but "on the back burner", keeping focus on the OD. I promised to clean up the messy OSSD page, but haven't gotten to it. I still intend to (and doubt anyone else will, but please do if you're inclined!), perhaps when I get around to writing an evaluation of the OSSD's "freedom" counterpart, the [Franklin Street Statement on Freedom and Network Services](http://autonomo.us/2008/07/14/franklin-street-statement/). + +Whether the OSSD or similar eventually plays a defining (ahem) role, free/open source software and services are critially important for the futre of open data and other open knowledge (e.g., for collaboration, sustainibility, reproducibility, auditability for bias, safety, and more). This is one of my standard [critiques embedded in praise](http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2013/02/13/open-knowledge-foundation/) and a recurrent topic in the OKF and other "open" communities, e.g., [last month](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2013-November/thread.html#9977). + + + +
If you’re a legal or policy expert, software freedom advocate, linked data hacker, translator, designer, communications maven — and want to go “meta” about openness, we could use your help! Join the od-discuss mailing list and pitch into the discussion, start a new one, or lurk until you’re ready. + +Final decisions about license conformance and definition updates are made by the Open Definition Advisory Council. This is not a big time commitment, but it is a big responsibility. If you’d like to join the AC someday, join od-discuss today.+ + + +The list had a subscriber count in the 40s (I didn't record the exact number) at the beginning of the year, 127 now. Will take that as success. + + + +
We’re especially keen to have AC members from every continent. Currently we only have Europe and North America, and recognize that’s a big problem for the long-term impact of the Open Definition project. Especially if you’re from the global South and care about the fundamentals of openness, please join od-discuss and get in touch!+ + + +This was on the agenda for some of the OD telecons through the year, but no progress in terms of AC membership. Lesson noted above: personal invitaiton is much more inviting than open-ended invitation. Embarrassing failure for 2013 that I'd be happy to help Herb & co. correct in the coming year. + +##Thanks! + +To everyone who engaged with the Open Definition in any way during 2013, from detailed discussion of new licenses, to translations of the OD, to education and advocacy for OD compliance, both public and behind the scenes. Carry on! diff --git a/_posts/2014-04-04-notes-from-open-definition-call-february-2014.markdown b/_posts/2014-04-04-notes-from-open-definition-call-february-2014.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dd8f771 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2014-04-04-notes-from-open-definition-call-february-2014.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +--- +author: herblainchbury +comments: false +date: 2014-04-04 04:10:24+00:00 +layout: post +slug: notes-from-open-definition-call-february-2014 +title: Notes from Open Definition Call February 2014 +wordpress_id: 858 +categories: +- Meetings +--- + +Previous call notes. Next call 2014-04-10 (2nd Thursday of even months) at 15:00 UTC. + +# Participants + +* Andrew Stott +* Herb Lainchbury +* Rufus Pollock +* Mike Linksvayer + +# Agenda + +* goals for 2014 + +* review status of OD 2.0 as I feel we’ve not had sufficient time to discuss. we’ll have to try to keep this high level as it’s easy to get stuck in the details, which may be better discussed on the list. +* heading review - Herb +* intro - Mike +* do we know what’s missing / problematic areas / areas of agreement? +* next steps? +* I would like a discussion of ideas around non-proliferation of Licenses. Is the OD 2.0 expected to address this? Is there something else we can be doing (refine the process, make it available to publishers). +* do we want to continue to hold off on further license decisions until OD 2.0 is published? (BC and AB) + +# Summary + +* do we want to continue to hold off on further license decisions until OD 2.0 is published? (BC and AB) +Summary + +### Actions + +* [Andrew] Section 4.1 review and then email the list +* [Herb] Section 3.1 + 3.2 review and update (then email the list) +* [Mike] Conformance process (recommendations) +* [Andrew] ping potential PhDs re being “Open Definition Secretary” and overseeing license review process (checking on new licenses coming in, emailing the list, doing a first pass check (optional)) + +### Discusions of v2.0 Open Definition + +Current version https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-dev.markdown + +* HL talked about how v2.0 calls for the separation of the test of the license from the test of a particular work. +* like the way the works section +* HL to edit section 3 (license) and make a recommendation +* AS to edit section 4 (works) +* we can discuss these things on the list +* Delete 3.1.7 on privacy (invite kfogel to state the case for the privacy clause) + +Agreed on having separate documents for Conformance process (see action} + +All the stuff from recommendations in current open def draft (s3.3) +Emphasize may be strictly conformant but will be heavily recommended against +[Future] Commentary - e.g. privacy stuff + +* Consider adding a list of licenses (to the repo) that are in the queue to be looked at +* RP proposed a license conformance secretary role + +### AOB + +* http://theunitedstates.io/licensing/ - FYI +Notes re v2.0 possible headings + + + 1. Introduction + + + + + 2. Terminology + + + + + 3. Open Licenses + 3.1 Required Permissions + 3.1.1 Use + 3.1.2 Redistribution + 3.1.3 Reuse (formerly Modification - I may have missed why this was being renamed, maybe there is good reason) + 3.1.4 Separation (a new required permission?) + 3.1.5 Compilation (the positive form of v1.1 clause 11) + 3.1.6 Application (formerly Application to Any Purpose) + 3.1.7 Privacy + + + + + 3.2 Acceptable Conditions + 3.2.1 Attribution + 3.2.2 Integrity + 3.2.3 Access (formerly Access and Restrictions - not sure what this is for, downstream work? for later discussion) + + + + + 3.3 Recommendations for Open Licenses + 3.3.1 Reuse (formerly Reusable) + 3.3.2 Compatible + 3.3.3 Coverage + 3.3.4 Understandable + + + + + 4. Open Works + 4.1 Mandatory Conditions + 4.1.1 Open License (formerly License and Licensing Information) + 4.1.2 Available (formerly Access) + 4.1.3 Open Format (formerly Absence of Technological Restrictions) + + + + + 4.2 Recommendations for Open Works diff --git a/_posts/2014-06-06-notes-from-open-definition-call-april-2014.markdown b/_posts/2014-06-06-notes-from-open-definition-call-april-2014.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d078cd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2014-06-06-notes-from-open-definition-call-april-2014.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ +--- +author: herblainchbury +comments: false +date: 2014-06-06 22:24:07+00:00 +layout: post +slug: notes-from-open-definition-call-april-2014 +title: Notes from Open Definition Call April 2014 +wordpress_id: 863 +categories: +- Meetings +--- + +# Participants + +* Mike Linksvayer +* Herb Lainchbury +* Chiaki Ishikawa + +# Agenda + +* status of action items from previous meeting +* OD 2.0 progress report and discussion +* Discussion of Japanese translation suggestions submitted by ishikawa ([https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-March/000810.html](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-March/000810.html)) +* OKFest meeting + +# Summary + +Had some trouble with the hangout so had to create a new one as it seems the existing one wasn’t re-usable after all. Will try this as calendar invitation in the future as well as the usual notice. + +### Discussion of OD 2.0 + + +ACTION: Herb will push ahead and get us to 2.0 draft in as close to it’s final form and we will pick up the discussion from there. This will include taking out the comments as our goal is to make the points as clear as possible without the commentary. ( perhaps a separate “guide” document for reviewers would be useful instead of the comments and links that are in OD 2.0 draft right now. + + +### Japanese Translation + +Discussion about translations in general, consider a process for translations in general. +ACTION: Herb to examine to existing “how you can help” text on OD web site and see if it needs more content about translation. + +ACTION: Mike to put Japanese translation into github + +ACTION: ? to notify Chiaki of the location of the Japanese translation + +ACTION: Chiaki will fork the translation, make the changes and then make a pull request. + +Suggestion from Chiaki: English could be the official version and other translations could refer to the English as the official version and translations are for convenience. + +### OK Fest + +Agreement that this might be a good venue to finalize the OD 2.0 discussion if it’s not already accomplished by then. + + + diff --git a/_posts/2014-08-10-notes-from-open-definition-call-june-2014.markdown b/_posts/2014-08-10-notes-from-open-definition-call-june-2014.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..31a9595 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2014-08-10-notes-from-open-definition-call-june-2014.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +--- +author: herblainchbury +comments: false +date: 2014-08-10 15:22:58+00:00 +layout: post +slug: notes-from-open-definition-call-june-2014 +title: Notes from Open Definition Call June 2014 +wordpress_id: 867 +categories: +- Meetings +--- + +# Participants + +* Herb Lainchbury +* Mike Linksvayer +* Timothy Vollmer +* Andrew Katz +* Rufus Pollock +* Luis Villa + +# Agenda + +* Status of action items from previous meeting +* OD 2.0 progress report and discussion +* Approval process and license category proposed update, see https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-April/000841.html + +# Summary + +* is there a date we’re shooting for on 2.0? no let’s just get it right, but there are a few licenses in the queue for review, for better or worse +* 2.0: most edits been incorporated into the new draft +* still open for comments + +### OD 2.0 review: + +ACTION: Herb will push ahead and get us to 2.0 draft in as close to it’s final form and we will pick up the discussion from there. This will include taking out the comments as our goal is to make the points as clear as possible without the commentary. ( perhaps a separate “guide” document for reviewers would be useful instead of the comments and links that are in OD 2.0 draft right now. + +* Rufus suggested swapping section 1 & 2 (deferred) +* Rufus suggested swapping section 1 & 2 (deferred) +* remove sub-points on 2 (yes) +* wording of “licensed rights” is legalese? +* pull request on new wording for 2.1.3? aaron +* new bold suggestion from aaron - patents and other legal restrictions; herb’s suggestion is to leave new things out at this point; for 2.0 we wanted to do a split and to have a positive tone; push to “good suggestions for next time” +* mike: 1.1.3 says derivatives must be allowed to be distributed under same license, but suggestion is could be any open framework; let’s think about first principles and have it make sense to those not familiar with open licenses; basically would make 1.1.3 less specific; push to list for more discussion +* impartiality stronger than non-discrimination; which to use? (rename to “non-discrimination”) + * Quote: “The license must not discriminate against persons or groups of persons” +* mike: conditions common in other open licenses but not listed as acceptable here? e.g. CC licenses wouldn’t be acceptable because no-DRM not listed at 1.2; will this become a laundry list? mike: we should have as close of a complete list as we can (similar to other definitions); new conditions that are weird should be able to be dealt with; stewards should be able to look at the list and know with high level of certainty whether their license is in compliance or not +andrew: would free/open source software licenses be accepted under the definition? possibly but OD is built upon OSI; we don’t want to especially exclude them but OD not primarily serving them +* Mike will suggest language for the 3 points he raised on the list +** “convenient and modifiable form” dealing +* Kent’s suggestions: 1.1.8: should the def be saying “license must grant permissions” when in some cases no permission is required (e.g. public domain) + * at top put note to the effect license grants permission unless no permission necessary - copyright - tweak wording in preamble? + * Agreed changes: + * 1.1 The license must irrevocably grant (or allow) the following + * Introduction: The term license refers to the legal conditions under which the work is made available. Where no license has been offered this should be interpreted as referring to default legal conditions governing use of the work (for example, copyright or, in some cases, public domain). +* AGREED: swap sections 1 and 2 +* Andrew: access must be free of technological obstacles too - looking at 2.1.2; +* rufus: merge issue #7 +* create issues for existing troubling licenses - yes +* ship by OKFest next month? + +### RP comments + +* [https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-May/000857.html](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-May/000857.html) + * Also s/open data format/open format/g in section 2.1.3 + + diff --git a/about/index.markdown b/about/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d195ff5 --- /dev/null +++ b/about/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +author: admin +comments: false +date: 2009-11-03 20:26:18+00:00 +layout: page +slug: about +title: About +wordpress_id: 5 +--- + +## Introduction + +The **Open Knowledge Definition (OKD)** provides an answer to the question: what is open knowledge? It puts forward, in a simple and clear manner, principles that define open knowledge and which open knowledge licenses must satisfy. + +The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access' journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential blurring of what is open and what is not. + +In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition, by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in achieving these ends. + +## What the Definition is Not + +It is worth noting a few things that the definition, and this project, are **not** intended to do: + + * The definition sets forth principles by which to judge whether a knowledge license is open, it does **not** seek to **provide or recommend** specific licenses. + * It seeks to '''complement not duplicate or replace''' existing work by groups such as Creative Commons or the Open Access movement. Its role is the relatively narrow one of drawing out a common set of principles which often already exist, explicitly or implicitly, in existing projects or licenses. + +## Who's Behind This + +The first version of the Open Knowledge Definition was developed by the [Open Knowledge Foundation](http://www.okfn.org) with substantial input from other interested parties (see acknowledgements section below). The project now has its own [Advisory Council](/advisory-council) who oversee the development of the definition and associated materials. However as detailed on the [participate](/participate) page the project is community-based and anyone can participate. Individuals and organizations who would be interested in becoming members of the 'Advisory Council' and help 'curate' the definition over the longer-term are especially welcome. + +## Acknowledgments + +The idea of openness and its specific expression here owe a huge debt to Free and Open Source software groups, as well as the Open Access movement. In particular much of the definition draws directly from the [Open Source Definition](http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php). + +Similarly the various Open Access documents especially the Budapest, Bethseda and Berlin declarations have been very influential and, in that light, the definition presented here could also be summarized as: open access plus modifiability. + +The following individuals have provided feedback on the Definition as it has evolved: + + * Cory Doctorow + * Peter Suber + * Tim Hubbard + * Peter Murray-Rust + * Jo Walsh + * Prodromos Tsiavos + * Erik Moeller diff --git a/advisory-council/index.markdown b/advisory-council/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3751394 --- /dev/null +++ b/advisory-council/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +--- +author: admin +comments: false +date: 2009-11-04 13:20:33+00:00 +layout: page +slug: advisory-council +title: Advisory Council +wordpress_id: 6 +--- + +## About + +The Advisory Council was created in the Autumn of 2007 as the body formally responsible for maintaining and developing the Definitions and associated material found on this site. Its mission is to take forward the 'Open Definition' work for the general benefit of the open knowledge community. In addition, it has specific responsibility for deciding on license conformance with the Definition. + +It should be emphasized that it is the hope, and intention, that overall development continue in the same community based and collaborative manner used until now with the Council's role being to provide oversight, guidance and input into this process, not to replace it. + +See [participate](/participate) for information on joining the Council and contributing to Open Definition work in other ways. + +## People + +* **Chair**: Herb Lainchbury +* **Secretary**: Daniel Dietrich + +### Baden Appleyard + +Baden Appleyard is National Programme Director of AusGOAL, the Australian Governments’ Open Access and Licensing Framework, which provides support and guidance to all levels of Australian government, government agencies and the research sector to facilitate open access to publicly funded information. Baden is a Barrister of the Supreme Court of Queensland and Barrister of the High Court of Australia, and holds degrees in law and commerce, in addition to tertiary qualifications in management. Baden was a Principal Research Fellow with the Faculty of Law at the Queensland University of Technology from 2007–2008. During this time he managed Project 3.05, for the Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information. Project 3.05 provided assistance to develop the Queensland Government Information Licensing Framework (GILF), the predecessor of AusGOAL. Baden launched GILF in 2008 and lead the creation of AusGOAL for the Australian Governments'. He currently has responsibility for AusGOAL's implementation and day to day management, and engages on a wide variety of related copyright, contractual and administrative law issues (e.g. FOI and Privacy). + +### Rachel Bruce + +Rachel Bruce is JISC's [innovation director for digital infrastructure](http://www.jisc.ac.uk/contactus/staff/rachelbruce.aspx). She oversees JISC's innovation and research programmes which relate to digital preservation, management of research data, resource discovery infrastructure, open access of scholarly communication, geospatial infrastructure and resources as well as open educational resources. This also includes activities which take place in partnership with JISC’s services UKOLN, JISC Observatory, Jorum and the Digital Curation. + +### Leigh Dodds + +Leigh Dodds is a freelance consultant working on data-driven applications, Open Data and Linked Data projects. He has many years +experience working with a range of web technologies and has spoken at a number of conferences on data publishing, open data and the semantic web. Leigh is also an associate at the UK Open Data Institute working on technical specifications in support of open data publishing. + +### Jordan Hatcher + +Jordan Hatcher is a lawyer and consultant working on copyright and content issues. You can learn more about what he does (and has done) on his [website](http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/). + +### Tariq Khokhar + +Tariq Khokhar is the World Bank's Open Data Evangelist. His interests lie where technology, transparency, poverty and data meet. He guides the World Bank's Open Data Initiative and is responsible for internal and external strategy, outreach and communications, and supporting client countries with their own open data programs. Prior to joining the Bank, Tariq led innovation and community engagement work at Aidinfo and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). He was formerly a director of Bond UK and the Chief Development Officer of Aptivate. He holds degrees from the University of Cambridge, has close relationships in the global Open Data and Open Government communities and currently lives in Washington DC. + +### Herb Lainchbury + +Herb Lainchbury is a consultant, a software developer and founder and President of the Open Data Society of British Columbia, Canada. He holds a BSc in Computer Science from the University of Victoria. He is a frequent speaker on open data and open government topics, is a member of the Government of Canada's Advisory Panel on Open Government and blogs at [herblainchbury.com](http://www.herblainchbury.com/). + +### Tom Lee + +Tom Lee is the Director of Sunlight Labs, where he oversees the Sunlight Foundation's software and data work, supervising engineering activities and contributing to the organization's policy advocacy on related issues. Prior to assuming leadership of the labs, he managed Sunlight’s Subsidyscope project, a data-driven effort to explore the level of federal involvement in various sectors of the economy. + +### Mike Linksvayer + +Mike Linksvayer writes about open matters on his [blog](http://gondwanaland.com/mlog). + +### Kent Mewhort + +Kent is a lawyer and a software engineer, with interests in the intersections between law, policy and technology. He is the CTO of EtheloDecisions, a social enterprise developing collaborative and equality-focused alternatives to majority-vote decision making. He is also a consultant for the Samuelson Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), where he develops and maintains the licensing information website CLIPol.org. He has previously worked as a public interest staff lawyer at this clinic, concentrating on client files and advocacy work in the area of open licensing. He is the legal project lead of Creative Commons Canada. Kent holds degrees in civil law and common law from McGill University and a computer science degree from the University of British Columbia. + +### Federico Morando + +Federico Morando is an economist, with interdisciplinary research interests focused on the intersection between law, economics and technology. His research activity at the Nexa Center mainly concerns new models of production and sharing of digital contents. He also taught intellectual property and competition law at Bocconi University in Milan and he is an associate editor of the IJCLP. He has an undergraduate degree in Economics from Bocconi Univ. and a master’s degree in Economic theory and econometrics from the Univ. of Toulouse. He holds a Ph.D. in Institutions, Economics and Law from the Univ. of Turin and Ghent with a dissertation about software interoperability. He joined the working group of the Nexa Center at the beginning of its first year of formal activity. From Dec. 2012, he leads the Creative Commons Italy project and he is a member of the Open Team of Regione Piemonte that launched and steers the development of the first Italian open government data portal. From Dec. 2008, in his position as the first Managing Director of the Center, he works closely with the Directors to define staff and project goals and to coordinate the Center’s fellows. + +### Peter Murray-Rust + +Peter Murray-Rust leads a research group in the Department of Chemistry at Cambridge University. Co-creator of the Chemical Markup Language (CML), he has long been a pioneer of data exchange and information-mining in the chemical sciences. Firmly committed to promoting openness and data availability throughout the discipline, he recently started the world-wide molecular matrix, the largest open online repository of molecular information in the world. + +### Rufus Pollock + +Rufus Pollock is a Founder of the Open Knowledge Foundation and has continued as a Director ever since. He has worked extensively both at a practical and academic level on open knowledge issues. + +### Andrew Stott + +Andrew Stott was the UK’s first Director for Transparency and Digital Engagement. He led the work to open government data and create “data.gov.uk”; and after the 2010 Election he led the policy development and implementation of the new Government’s commitments on Transparency of central and local government. Following his formal retirement in December 2010 he was appointed to the UK Transparency Board to continue to advise UK Ministers on open data and e-government policy. He also advises other governments on Open Data both bilaterally and through the World Bank and the World Wide Web Foundation. He is an expert adviser on Open Data strategy to the EU Citadel On The Move programme and co-chairs the OKFN Open Government Data Working Group. + +### Peter Suber + +Peter Suber is the Director of the Harvard Open Access Project, Faculty Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Senior Researcher at the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), Research Professor of Philosophy at Earlham College, and a non-practicing lawyer. For more details, see his [home page](http://bit.ly/suber-gplus). + +### Luis Villa + +Luis Villa is Deputy General Counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation. Previously he was an associate in the Palo Alto office of the Greenberg Traurig law firm, where his practice focused on counseling companies on intellectual property, technology licensing and related matters, with a particular focus on open source licensing. His clients were both for-profits and non-profits, including Mozilla, the Wikimedia Foundation, Amazon, and Facebook. He also advised Google in the Oracle v. Google trial, and led the first revision of the Mozilla Public License in a decade. Luis is a director of the Open Source Initiative, and serves as an invited expert on the World Wide Web Consortium's Patents and Standards Interest Group. Before law school, Luis worked in software, including several years working on the GNOME Linux desktop at a small startup. + +### Jo Walsh + +Jo Walsh has been hacking for more than ten years and working with geodata for for more than five. As well as her involvement with the OKF she is also on the board of the [Open Source Geo-Spatial Foundation](http://osgeo.org/) and is one of the authors of O'Reilly's [Mapping Hacks](http://www.mappinghacks.com/). As one of those people who still think that the semantic web will save the world she gets very excited about metadata standards and data sharing.. + +## Emeriti + +Thanks to all who have previously served on the Advisory Council. + +* [Paul Jacobson](http://webtechlaw.com/) +* [Paul Miller](http://cloudofdata.com) +* [Rob Styles](http://dynamicorange.com/) +* [John Wilbanks](http://del-fi.org) diff --git a/bibliographic/index.markdown b/bibliographic/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..15d40dd --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliographic/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +--- +author: rgrp +comments: false +date: 2010-10-06 09:24:08+00:00 +layout: page +slug: bibliographic +title: Open Bibliographic Data +wordpress_id: 388 +--- + +**Open** *bibliographic* data is material that is: + + * "Open" as defined by this site's [Open Definition](/1.0/)-- in essence freely usable, reusable and redistributable, subject, at most, to the requirements to attribute and sharealike. + * Data or metadata produced by the bibliographic (library) sector, in particular catalogue (and related) metadata. + +### More information + + * [Open Bibliography Principles](http://openbiblio.net/principles/) + * [OpenBiblio.net - Open Bibliographic Projects and Discussion and home of the Open Bibliographic Data Working Group](http://openbiblio.net/) + * [Open Bibliographic Data mailing list](http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography) + diff --git a/buttons/index.markdown b/buttons/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0a635e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/buttons/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: false +date: 2009-12-20 12:21:15+00:00 +layout: page +slug: buttons +title: 'Open Buttons ' +wordpress_id: 122 +--- + +We've created some web buttons which you can use to indicate that the material you are distributing is **open**. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +There are a variety of colours and shapes and you can check out the full range on this demo page: + + + +**To add an open knowledge button to your page:** + + 1. Add one of the html snippets below to your web page. + 2. **[optional]** Change the button image by changing the src attribute on the img tag to the url of a different button (see links above). + 3. **[optional]** Store the button locally: you can also download the button you want to use and save it locally (just navigate to the directory linked above, click on the button you want and then choose Save As). If you do this you will want to update the src url to point to your local copy. + +### Open Knowledge Button + + + + [ + ](http://opendefinition.org/) + + + +The result should look similar to: + + + +[ +  +](http://opendefinition.org/) + + +### Open Data Button + + + +[ +  +](http://opendefinition.org/) + + + + +[ +  +](http://opendefinition.org/) + + +### Open Content Button + + + +[ +  +](http://opendefinition.org/) + + + +Which should look similar to: + + +[ + ](http://opendefinition.org/) + + diff --git a/contact/index.markdown b/contact/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c143e5d --- /dev/null +++ b/contact/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: false +date: 2010-01-27 15:31:45+00:00 +layout: page +slug: contact +title: 'Contact ' +wordpress_id: 242 +--- + +* Email: opendefinition [at] okfn [dot] org + * Mailing list: [od-discuss mailing list](http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss) + +If you have any questions, comments or suggestions about the Open Knowledge Definition, please contact us. You can do so either by sending and email or writing to the mailing list (you will need to sign up to the list first). + +We aim to translate the Definition into many other languages. If you would like to help out with [/participate](translating) the Definition into a language not already listed, please get in touch either via email or on the mailing list. diff --git a/government/index.markdown b/government/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..95b7519 --- /dev/null +++ b/government/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: true +date: 2010-02-19 15:05:00+00:00 +layout: page +slug: government +title: Open Government Data and Content +wordpress_id: 264 +--- + +**Open** government data and content is material that is: + + * "Open" as defined by this site's [Open Definition](/1.0/)-- in essence material (data) is open if it can be freely used, reused and redistributed by anyone. + * Produced or commissioned by government or government controlled entities. + +### More information + + * [Open Government Data website](http://opengovernmentdata.org/) + * [Open Knowledge Foundation Working Group on Open Government Data](http://wiki.okfn.org/wg/government) + * [Open Government (open-government) mailing list](http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government) diff --git a/guide/data/index.markdown b/guide/data/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..69b702d --- /dev/null +++ b/guide/data/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,223 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: false +date: 2010-02-19 14:26:53+00:00 +layout: page +slug: data +title: 'Guide to Open Data Licensing ' +wordpress_id: 255 +--- + +[toc] + +## Introduction + +This a guide to licensing data aimed particularly at those who want to make their data [open](http://www.opendefinition.org/). + +The first section deals with the practical question of how to license your data. The second section discusses what kinds of rights (intellectual property or other) exist in data in various jurisdictions. + +### Status and Editing + +This guide is now v1.0. There is still much that can be done to improve and extend it. If you want to discuss the content or make general comments add them as a comment below. + +### Disclaimer + +In addition to the disclaimer in the license linked at the bottom of the page please note that: + +1. This information is collected by altruistic individuals most of whom are not lawyers; those who are lawyers are not your lawyers nor experts in your situation. You use this information at your own risk. +2. Nothing in this page should be considered as legal advice. + +## Licensing your Data + +In most jurisdictions there are intellectual property rights in data that prevent third-parties from using, reusing and redistributing data without explicit permission. Even in places where the existence of rights is uncertain, it is important to apply a license simply for the sake of clarity. Thus, **if you are planning to make your data available you should put a license on it** -- and if you want your data to be [open](http://opendefinition.org/) this is even more important. + +What licenses can you use? We recommend for 'open' data you use one of the licenses conformant with the [Open Definition ](http://www.opendefinition.org/) and marked as suitable for data. This list (along with instructions for usage) can be found at: + +* + +A short 1-page instruction guide to applying an open data license can be found on the Open Data Commons site: + +* + +## What Legal (IP) Rights Are There in Data (and Databases) + +When talking about databases we first need to be distinguish between the structure and the content of a database (when we use the term 'data' we shall mean the content of the database itself). As explained in detail in the FAQ prepared by Science Commons [11]: + +> "Databases usually are comprised of at least four elements: (1) a set of field names identifying the data; (2) a structure (or model), which includes the organization of fields and relations among them; (3) data sheets; and (4) data. All of the Creative Commons licenses can be applied to these elements to the extent that copyright applies to them (and the Dutch and Belgium licenses can also be applied to the data, for reasons discussed in greater detail below. Copyright applies to minimally creative works expressed in a fixed form. In most databases, items (2) and (3) - the structure and the data sheet - will reflect sufficient creativity for copyright to apply. A Creative Commons license applied to these elements will permit copying of these elements under the conditions of the license selected. Field names, such as “Address” for the name of the field for street address information, are less likely to be protected by copyright because they often do not reflect creativity." + +Thus, the structural elements of a database will generally be covered by copyright. However, here we are particularly interested in the data. When we talk of "data" we need to be a bit careful because the word isn't particularly precise: "data" can mean a few or even a single items (for example a single bibliographic record, a lat/long etc) or "data" can mean a large collection (e.g. all the material in the database). To avoid confusion we shall reserve the term "contents" to mean the individual items, and data to denote the collection. + +Unlike for material such as text, music or film the legal situation for data varies widely across countries but most jurisdictions **do** grant some rights in the data (as a collection). + +This distinction between the "contents" of a database and the collection is especially crucial for factual databases since no jurisdiction grants a monopoly right in the individual facts (the "contents") even though it may grant right(s) in them as a collection. To illustrate, consider the simple example of a database which lists the melting point of various substances. While the database as a whole might be protected by law so that one is not allow to access, reuse or redistribute it without permission this would never prevent you from stating the fact that substance Y melts at temperature Z. + +Forms of protection fall broadly into two cases: + +* Copyright for compilations +* A *sui generis* right for collections of data + +As we have already emphasized there are no general rules and the situation varies by jurisdiction. Thus, below we proceed country by country detailing which (if any) of these approaches is used in a particular jurisdiction. + +Finally, we should point out that absent any legal protection many providers of (closed) databases are able to use simple contract combined with legal provisions prohibiting violation of access-control mechanisms to achieve similar results to a formal IP right. For example, if X is provider of a citation database, it can achieve any set of terms of conditions it wants simply by: + +(a) Requiring users to login with a password +(b) Only providing a user with an account and password on the condition that the user agrees to the terms and conditions + +### EU + +#### Database Directive + +In the European Union there is a database specific 'Database Directive': Directive [96/9/EC on the 'legal protection of databases' (Eurlex)](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31996L0009&model=guichett) (also available at the old [EC 'Information Society' archive](http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/infosoc/legreg/docs/969ec.html)). + +It provides for both copyright and the sui-generis right though with some restrictions on when you can use the copyright (old common-law jurisdictions and many others allowed copyright in simple data no matter how 'unoriginal'). Specifically here is the quote from [3] paras 19-37 and following: + +> (i) Copyright in the Compilation. ... First, it [the DB directive] defines what is meant by a "database": "a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means." [DB Dir Art 3] Then it allows copyright in a database (as distinct from its contents), but only on the basis of authorship involving involving personal intellectual creativity. This is a new limitation, so far as common law countries are concerned, and one which must presage a raising of the standard or originality throughout British Copyright law. Intellectual judgment which is in some sense the author's own must go either into choosing contents or into the method of arrangement. The selective dictionary will doubtless be a clearer case than the classificatory telephone directory but each may have some hope; the merely comprehensive will be precluded -- that is the silliness of the whole construct. +> +> ... +> +> (ii) Database right. In addition there is a separate sui generis right given to the maker of a database (the investing initiator) against extraction or reutilisation of the database. Four essential points may be highlighted: +> +> 1. The right applies to databases whether or not their arrangement justifies copyright and whatever position may be regarding copyright in individual items in its contents. +> 2. The focus upon contents, rather than organisational structure, is intended to give a right where the contents have been wholly or substantially taken out and re-arranged (generally by a computer) so as to provide a quite different organisation to essentially the same material -- a re-organisation which would not necessarily amount to infringement of copyright in the original arrangement. ... +> 3. The database has to be the produce of substantial investment. ... +> 4. The right lasts for 15 years from completion of the database, or 15 years from its becoming available to the public during initial period. However, further substantial investment in additions, deletions or alterations starts time running afresh. ... + +#### Pre-Database Directive + +Database protection has been around for quite a while indirectly both in Europe and elsewhere. In Europe many countries traditionally granted copyright based protection: + +1. Common law countries such as UK always had a '[sweat-of-the-brow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow)' approach. +1. Nordic countries have long had a 'catalogue' right (since 1950s) +2. Germany used unfair competition and copyright +3. Netherlands had exception with Van Dale vs. Romme even though it had an very old law that granted copyright in non-original stuff. + +However generally continental Europe tougher because requires higher standard of 'creativity/originality' to grant copyright. + +### Australia + +Like other common law jurisdictions Australia provides for 'sweat-of-the-brow' copyright on the basis of the application of skill and labour. The relevant decision in this regard is ''Desktop Marketing Systems +Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited''[4] summarized in [5]. + +#### Copyright in Data under the Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) + +Under the Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)[6] ideas and information may be protected when they are expressed in a "material form", such as written down, entered into a computer or stored in some other machine-readable form. What is protected is not the idea or information in itself, but rather the expression of that idea or information, that is, the form in which the idea or information is expressed. This means that raw data, basic facts or items of information will not, in themselves, attract copyright protection. However, where data, information or facts have been compiled to create a new work, eg a dataset or database, that work may be protected by copyright as a compilation if it meets the originality threshold under Australian copyright law. + +Compilations are protected in the literary works category, which is defined in s10(1) of the Copyright Act as including "a table, or a compilation, expressed in words, figures or symbols". Data, metadata or a compilation of numerous items of data or metadata records may be protected by copyright if the compilation meets the originality threshold required for copyright. Any underlying database software may also be protected by copyright as a literary work. The definition of "literary work" in s 10(1) of the Copyright Act includes "a computer program or a compilation of computer programs". + +#### Compilations - Desktop v. Telstra + +In Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2002)[7], the leading Australian case in this area, the Full Federal Court considered whether Telstra had copyright in its Yellow Pages and White Pages directories containing names, addresses and phone numbers of telephone subscribers in a given region, listed in alphabetical order. Telstra had undertaken substantial labour and incurred substantial expense in compiling and listing the subscriber entries in its White and Yellow Pages directories. + +The court held that copyright can be claimed in a compilation which - + +* has been produced as a result of the exercise of skill, judgment or knowledge in the selection, presentation or arrangement of the materials; or + +* has required the investment of a substantial amount of labour or expense to generate or collect the material included in it (the so-called "sweat of the brow" approach).[8] + +The court held that Telstra had met the originality threshold, notwithstanding that there may have been minimal intellectual input or creativity in the selection and arrangement of the material in the telephone directories. + +The decision in Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd makes it clear that, in Australia, a compilation of data, eg a database, may be protected by copyright provided that either a sufficient amount of labour or expense has gone into collecting the data or a sufficient degree of skill, judgment or knowledge has been applied in selecting and organising the data. + +The test described by the Full Federal Court in Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd sets a lower threshold for originality than that required in the United States. In Australia, the originality test does not require any degree of creativity to be applied in creating the work, with the result that a purely factual compilation is more likely to qualify for copyright protection in Australia than in the United States. + +#### Assigning and licensing copyright in datasets and databases - further considerations + +Owners of copyright in datasets and databases may fully or partially assign their copyright or license another party to use it. To be legally effective, assignments must be (1) in writing, and (2) signed by or on behalf of the assignor. Licences need not be in writing unless the licence being granted is an exclusive one. Copyright datasets and databases can be licensed under a creative commons or other similar open content copyright licence. + +For further information on Australian copyright law applicable to databases, the licensing of data and issues of open access to data see: + +* [The Oak Law Project Report No. 1: Creating a Legal Framework for Copyright Management of Open Access within the Australian Academic and Research Sector](http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00006099/) (PDF), August 2006, Elect Printing, Canberra; +* [The Oak Law Project and the Legal framework for e-Research Project Report: Building the Infrastructure for Data Access and Reuse in Collaborative Research: An Analysis of the Legal Context](http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00008865/) (PDF), June 2007, Elect Printing, Canberra; +* [The Queensland Spatial Information Council's Report: Government Information and Open Content Licensing: An Access and Use Strategy](http://www.qsic.qld.gov.au/qsic/QSIC.nsf/CPByUNID/BFDC06236FADB6814A25727B0013C7EE), October 2006; +* Chapter 4 - Copyright, in "Intellectual Property: in Principle", Anne Fitzgerald and Brian Fitzgerald, Thomson, Sydney, 2004; and +* Chapter 4 - Copyright, in "Internet and e-commerce law: technology, law and policy" Brian, Fitzgerald, Anne Fitzgerald et al, Thomson, Sydney, 2007. + +### Canada + +Canada, though also a common law jurisdiction like Australia, has tended to limit the range of IP rights in databases more. In particular the recent case of *CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada* included discussions of originality, the 'sweat of the brow' approach and references to the Feist case. However, there was no clear ruling relevant to data licensing as database rights were not specifically issue. From [9]: + +"Paragraphs 15 to 25 hint towards the question of database protection, and even cite the US case (Feist) on telephone directories, but as is usual, since that question wasn't actually one of the ones that needed to be decided here, they didn't completely decide it. The Court rejects the "sweat of the brow" definition of "original work" (which is the one that leads to "the phone book database is an original work") but also rejects the "creativity" definition (which requires work to be "novel" or "unique"); instead, "originality" is supposed to require "exercise of skill and judgment". From paragraph 16: "The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise." That sounds like it could exclude databases. But then in the next sentence there will be something to annoy the graphic design people (hi, Kate!): "For example, any skill and judgment that might be involved in simply changing the font of a work to produce "another" work would be too trivial to merit copyright protection as an "original" work." + +Cf. [Sweat of the Brow, Creativity, and Authorship: On Originality in Canadian Copyright Law](http://www.uoltj.ca/articles/vol1.1-2/2003-2004.1.1-2.uoltj.Drassinower.105-123.pdf), Abraham Drassinower + +### US + +#### Overview + +Ths US is a common-law jurisdiction. However the Feist decision substantially raises the originality 'bar' required for the existence of a copyright in a compilation. There are excellent summaries of the US situation in [14] and [13a]. [13a] states: + +> "The US has no database law like the European Union. Databases can be protected by copyright if they qualify as a "compilation". This requires that the items were included into the database because of some creative expression on the part of the collector. For instance a "best of 2004" collection qualifies. This involves an aesthetic judgment about what is the "best". A "complete list of English words" would not, since trying to be complete is not a creative activity." +> +> "Some other legal doctrines are available in special cases. Using someone else's "hot news" may be unlawful. And using electronic spiders (web robots) to extract information from someone else's site may qualify as electronic trespassing." + +Thus, while a pure 'database' right does not exist it seems likely that one can obtain copyright in at least some collections of data. Given this uncertainty there is all the more reason to use an explicit license. (Cf. the comments along similar lines of Harlan Onsrud in [1]). + +#### US Data outside the US + +Furthermore we should note that even if data in the US had no IP protection it would not prevent said data being protected elsewhere (though note that the EU DB directive provides has reciprocity stipulations that mean a DB provider from a jurisdiction which does not provide DB protection will not be able to use the rights provided in the directive). + +For example, the information provided in [10] appears to suggest the library of congress **charges** for its data to users outside of the US. + +#### Feist v. Rural + +Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. was a Supreme Court case from 1991. Rural claimed that Feist infringed their copyright by including portions of their local telephone listings in larger regional directories. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the District Court and the Court of Appeals - that Feist infringed copyright - suggesting that "originality, not 'sweat of the brow', is the touchstone of copyright protection in directories and other fact-based works". The fact that Rural, as a telephone company, was obliged to annually publish a telephone directory due to state regulation, was taken into account. Furthermore, it was mentioned that Feist's product would be less marketable if there were gaps in their listings - and that Feist and Rural "compete vigorously". The crucial point however, was that Rural's directory did not constitute a copyrightable 'work'. It lacked originality in the form of selection or arrangements of its parts - described by the court as "a garden-variety white pages directory, devoid of even the slightest trace of creativity". In the absence of original expression in its component parts it was ruled that the listings were not copyrightable. + + * [Feist v. Rural ruling](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court#US&vol=499&invol340) + +#### Federal Government Data + +To confuse matters further the US constitution mandates that the output of federal agencies be put into the public domain. This has the result that all government data is automatically put into the public domain. Note however that this does not mean that those who use or build upon that data necessarily are placing *their* work in the public domain. + +## Use Cases + +Things to consider: + +* What is covered. +* What is boundary of share-alike. +* Difference between a derivative work and a compilation +* Attribution requirements for data + +### Geodata in the UK + +* See + +### OWL Ontology for Use with Geodata + +* See mail thread: + +### Archaeological Data + +TODO + +### Chemical Data + +Chemical data, such as that collected in repositories such as PubChem and the world wide molecular matrix, though dealing with the physical world (pure facts) will certainly be subject to the same provisions as any other form of data. Thus it is important to apply a license to the data to ensure that its status is clear in those jurisdictions which allow IP rights in data. + +## Credits + +Add your name here if you would like to listed as a contributor: + +* Rufus Pollock +* Jonathan Gray +* [Various authors from the Oak Law Project](http://www.oaklaw.qut.edu.au/) + +In addition we'd like to acknowledge the excellent sciencecommons FAQ [11] originally put together by Mia Garlick of CC. + +## References + +* [1]: -- copyright not applicable to geodata post. +* [2]: -- copyright not applicable to geodata thread. +* [3]: Cornish and Llewelyn, Intellectual Property, 5th Edition [Sweet and Maxwell]. +* [4]: *Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited*, [2002] FCAFC 112 (15 May 2002). +* [5]: Davison, M. The Legal Protection of Databases, Cambridge Studies in Intellectual Property Rights, Cambridge, 2003. +* [6]: See the Copyright Act 1968 on the ComLaw.web site: . +* [7]: Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2002] FCAFC 112, Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, Chief Justice Black and Justices Lindgren and Sackville, at . The Full Federal Court affirmed the first instance decision in Telstra Corporation Ltd v. Desktop Marketing Systems [2001] FCA 612, Justice Finkelstein, at . See further Brian Fitzgerald and Cheranne Bartlett, 'Database Protection under Australian Copyright Law: Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation [2002] FCAFC 112' (2003) 7 Southern Cross University Law Review 308. +* [8]: Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation [2002] FCAFC 112, [409]. +* [9]: [Blog entry on CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada](http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/cases/2004030401.php). +* [10]: [Open Library Catalog Data](http://www.tomkeays.com/blog/archives/2006/12/18/004216.php) (blog entry). +* [11]: [Science Commons FAQ on Databases](http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases). +* [12]: [OSM Wiki Page containing Information on case law as it specifically relates to geodata](http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Case_law) +* [13]: [ Ius Mentis Crash course on database rights](http://www.iusmentis.com/databases/crashcourse/) +* [13a]: [ Ius Mentis: Database protection in the US](http://www.iusmentis.com/databases/us/) +* [14]: [Copyright in Databases by Michael Carroll](http://carrollogos.blogspot.com/2009/02/copyright-in-databases.html) (Visiting Professor of Law at the American University, Washington College of Law) +* [15]: [Licensing Geographic Data](http://www.punkish.org/Licensing-Geographic-Data) diff --git a/guide/index.markdown b/guide/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e1f92d9 --- /dev/null +++ b/guide/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: false +date: 2009-12-20 12:09:52+00:00 +layout: page +slug: guide +title: 'Guide to Open Licensing ' +wordpress_id: 110 +--- + +**Please note:** This guide has been produced by individuals who are not lawyers. Nothing in this page should be considered as legal advice. + +In addition to this general guide there is also a detailed [Guide focused on Open *Data* Licensing](data/). + +[toc] + +## What is an open license? + +A license is a document that specifies what can and cannot be done with a work (whether sound, text, image or multimedia). It grants permissions and states restrictions. Broadly speaking, an open license is one which grants permission to access, re-use and redistribute a work with few or no restrictions. (A full set of conditions which must be met in order for a license to be open is available in the [Open Knowledge Definition 1.0](http://www.opendefinition.org/1.0).) + +For example, a piece of writing on a website made available under an open license would be free for anyone to: + + * print out and share, + * publish on another website or in print, + * make alterations or additions, + * incorporate, in part or in whole, into another piece of writing, + * use as the basis for a work in another medium - such as an audio recording or a film, + * and do many other things ... + +Openly licensed works are hence free to be shared, improved and built upon! + +The exact permissions granted depend on the full text of the open license that is applied. Different projects may require slightly different sets of permissions, or restrictions - and there are a range of different licenses available to cater to these different purposes. Some open licenses stipulate that the work may be freely re-used or re-distributed as long as the original author is appropriately credited. Some licenses state that any derivative works - or works that incorporate all or parts of the original work - are made available under the same license as the original work. + +For a list of the most common open licenses, see the [Open Knowledge Licenses page](http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses). + +## Why use an open license? + +Works that are published without an explicit license are usually subject to the copyright laws of the jurisdiction they are published in by default. These laws typically give several exclusive rights to the copyright holder - including the right to produce copies, and to produce derivative works. These rights prohibit unauthorised re-distribution and re-use by third parties - and can remain in effect until the date of death of the author plus 70 years. While the protections offered by copyright laws are appropriate in many circumstances, there are also circumstances in which these protections may be unnecessarily restrictive. + +Open licenses enable creators to allow more freedom in what others can do with their works. Benefits of this freedom include: + + * allowing others to circulate the work freely - potentially giving it a greater circulation than if a single group or individual retained an exclusive right to distribute; + * not forcing users to apply for permission every time they wish to circulate a copy of the work in question - which can be a time consuming affair, especially if the work has many authors; + * encouraging others to continuously improve and add value to a work; + * encouraging others to create new works based on or derived from the original work - e.g. translations, adaptations, or works with a different scope or focus. + +## How can I apply an open license? + +Applying an open license to a work can be very straightforward. The procedure may slightly vary depending on which license is selected, but should be more or less as follows: + + 1. Get permission from all rightholders to openly license the work. + 2. Decide which open license best suits your purposes. + 3. Display a notice somewhere prominent on your work stating that your work is made available under the open license you have chosen. Include a copy of, or a link to, the full text of your chosen license in your work. + +More detailed instructions on how to apply specific licenses are available on the [licenses page](http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses). + +## Data + +This guide has primarily focused on "content" -- texts, images etc. The situation for data is somewhat different because the monopoly rights in data are much more variable across different jurisdictions. The basic logic is still the same: choose a suitable open license and apply it to your work. Further information about open licensing for **data**, can found both in our associated guide for [Guide to Open Data Licensing](/data) and as part of the [Open Data Commons project](http://www.opendatacommons.org/). + + +## Further information + +For further information about specific open licenses, please see their respective websites. These are listed on the [Open Knowledge licenses page](http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses). + +The following is a list of articles and posts about open licenses and open licensing: + + * [A Guide to Open Content Licenses](http://pzwart.wdka.hro.nl/mdr/research/lliang/open_content_guide/), Lawrence Liang, December 2004. This is an excellent listing, summary and analysis of current open content licenses. + * [Learning the lesson: open content licensing](http://lwn.net/Articles/181374/), Glyn Moody, August 2006. A good history of open content licenses. + * [Definition of Free Cultural Works licenses page](http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses). A grid comparing permissions and restrictions of different open licenses. + * The [Wikimedia Commons - Choosing a license](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license) page gives a good breakdown of common license conditions. + + diff --git a/history/index.markdown b/history/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7eb0ab5 --- /dev/null +++ b/history/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +--- +author: admin +comments: false +date: 2009-12-08 08:43:22+00:00 +layout: page +slug: history +title: History +wordpress_id: 76 +--- + +## History of the Open Definition + +### v1.1: 2009-11 + +Very minor corrections and emendations to the text. Merge annotated and simple versions of the definition. + +### v1.0: 2006-07 + +After a final period in which to solicit feedback version 1.0 was released in July 2006. At the same time the project was moved from http://www.okfn.org/okd/ to its current location. + +### v0.2.1:2006-05 + +Further feedback led to another minor revision (v0.2.1) in May 2006. + +### v0.2: 2005-10 + +In response to that feedback a second draft (v0.2) was released in October 2005 and publicly posted on the OKF website at http://www.okfn.org/okd/. + +### v0.1: 2005-08 + +The first version (v0.1) of the definition was drafted in August 2005 and was circulated to, among others, Peter Suber, Cory Doctorow, Tim Hubbard, Peter Murray-Rust, Jo Walsh and Prodromos Tsiavos. + + +## Recent Developments + + * **Autumn 2009 onwards:** please see + * **2009-09-30**: [Macedonian](/okd/Makedonski_jazik) translation of the Open Knowledge Definition thanks to Ljube Babunski + * **2009-09-22**: [Swedish](/okd/Svenska) translation of the Open Knowledge Definition thanks to [Peter Krantz](http://www.peterkrantz.com) and [Staffan Malmgren](http://lagen.nu) + * **2009-06-19**: [French](/okd/Francais) translation of the Open Knowledge Definition thanks to Caroline Ker and Séverine Dusollier, [University of Namur](http://www.fundp.ac.be/) + * **2009-06-03**: [One Click Orgs](http://www.oneclickor.gs/) are using an Open Service button. + * **2009-06**: The [University of Huddersfield Library](http://library.hud.ac.uk) is using an Open Data button - see the [Circulation and Recommendation Data directory](http://library.hud.ac.uk/data/usagedata/) and the [readme](http://library.hud.ac.uk/data/usagedata/_readme.html). + * **2008-12-18**: [ Icelandic](/okd/Islenska) translation of the Open Knowledge Definition thanks to Hjalmar Gislason and [Icelandic Open Data](http://opingogn.net/). + * **2008-11-14**: [ Greek](/okd/Ellinika) translation of the Open Knowledge Definition thanks to Ioannis Doukas, [King's College London](http://www.kcl.ac.uk/)/[University of Athens](http://uoa.gr/). + * **2008-10-08**: The [Computus Engine](http://www.computus.org/journal/index.php) is using an Open Knowledge web button. + * **2008-08-09**: The [Kids Open Dictionary Builder](http://dictionary.k12opened.com/) is using the Open Knowledge web button. + * **2008-08-04**: Mike Linksvayer joins the opendefinition.org [ Advisory Council](advisory-council/). + * **2008-06-03**: [ Italian](/okd/Italiano) translation of the Open Knowledge Definition thanks to Primavera De Filippi, Andrea Glorioso and Juan Carlos De Martin at the [NEXA Center for Internet & Society](http://nexa.polito.it/), Politecnico di Torino. + * **2008-06-02**: [Debategraph](http://debategraph.com/) is using the Open Knowledge web button. + * **2008-05-26**: The [Potto Project](http://www.potto.org/) is using the Open Content web button. + * **2008-04-03**: The [omdb](http://www.omdb.org/) is using the Open Content web button (see their [copyright page](http://www.omdb.org/content/Copyright)). + * **2008-04-01**: [MusicBrainz](http://musicbrainz.org/) are using the Open Knowledge web button. + * **2008-03-11**: [ Basque translation of the Definition](/okd/Euskara) courtesy of Gotzon Egia. + * **2008-03-03**: [ Spanish](/okd/Espanol) and [ Catalan](/okd/Catala) translations of the Definition courtesy of Ignasi Labastida i Juan. + * **2008-02-29**: [Polish translation of the Definition](/okd/Polszczyzna) courtesy of Jarosław LIpszyc + * **2008-02-28**: [Danish translation of the Definition](/okd/Dansk) courtesy of Peter Froberg + * **2008-02-11**: New [ Advisory Council](advisory-council/) for managing http://opendefinition.org and its associated material. + * **2007-12-17**: Science Commons announce [Protocol for Implementing Open Access Data](http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/) which is compatible with the Open Knowledge/Data Definition. + * **2007-12-12**: [Prelinger Archives at archive.org](http://www.archive.org/details/prelinger) are using the Open Knowledge web button. + * **2007-1/okd9**: [Languages of the World (Multilingual RDF Descriptions)](http://www.lingvoj.org/) using the Open Data web button. + * **2007-10-17**: [New Popular Edition Maps](http://www.npemap.org.uk/) are using the Open Data web button + * **2007-09-10**: [DBTune](http://moustaki.org/dbtune/) is using the Open Knowledge web button + * **2007-09-01**: [Quotations Book](http://www.quotationsbook.com) are using the Open Content web button (see their [disclaimer page](http://www.quotationsbook.com/disclaimer/)) + * **2007-08-31**: [GovTrack](http://www.govtrack.us/) is using the Open Knowledge web button + * **2007-08-25**: [AMEE](http://blog.co2.dgen.net/) are using the Open Knowledge and Open Data web buttons (see their [blog](http://blog.co2.dgen.net/) and their [wiki](http://wiki.co2.dgen.net/index.php/Main_Page)). + * **2007-07-18**: [DBpedia](http://dbpedia.org/docs/) is using the Open Data web button (see their resource pages, e.g. [Berlin](http://dbpedia.org/page/Berlin)). + * **2007-06-25**: [Geocoder US](http://geocoder.us/) is using the Open Knowledge web button. + * **2007-05-02**: [Crystal Eye (Open Crystallography Data)](http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/crystaleye/) using the Open Data web buttons (see e.g. [this page](http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/crystaleye/summary/acta/b/2007/02-00/data/bk5043/bk5043sup1_2-F-PCB3/bk5043sup1_2-F-PCB3.cif.summary.html) which provides summary data on C12H8ClF). + * **2007-04-09**: [Planning Alerts](http://www.planningalerts.com/apihowto.php) using an Open Data web button. + * **2007-03-22**: [Open Access News](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html) using an Open Knowledge web button + * **2007-02-23**: [The Public Whip](http://www.publicwhip.org/) using the new Open Data web button + * **2007-02-06**: Open Knowledge and Open Data 'web buttons' available on the [buttons](/buttons/) page + * **2007-01-22**: Update front page with 'distilled' version of the definition + * **2006-09-27**: [Serbian Translation](http://gnulinuxcentar.org/index.php?option#com_content&task;=category§ionid;=5&id;=30&Itemid41;) courtesy of Vedran Vucic and the [GNULinux Centar](http://gnulinuxcentar.org) + * **2006-09-10**: [German translation of the Definition](http://atakan.blogg.de/eintrag.php?id=96) courtesy of [Christian Hauschke](http://atakan.blogg.de/) + * **2006-09-06**: v1 released + * **2006-07-20**: New site goes live. + * **2006-06**: Beta version in circulation. + * **2006-05**: Contact with Freedom Defined project + * **2006-01**: Definition has own project page on Open Knowledge Foundation website at: http://www.okfn.org/okd/ + * **2005-10**: v0.2 of the definition produced and circulated for comments + * **2005-08**: Draft version of the definition produced and circulated for comments diff --git a/licenses/against-drm/index.markdown b/licenses/against-drm/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..59a9778 --- /dev/null +++ b/licenses/against-drm/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: true +date: 2009-12-20 12:19:33+00:00 +layout: page +slug: against-drm +title: 'Against DRM ' +wordpress_id: 119 +--- + + * Domain of Application: Content + +#### Full text + +http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2.html < +> +http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es1.html < +> +http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_es2.html < +> +http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_fr.html < +> +http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2_it.html + +#### Comments + +Against DRM 2.0 is a free copyleft license for artworks. diff --git a/licenses/cc-by-sa/index.markdown b/licenses/cc-by-sa/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8b8840d --- /dev/null +++ b/licenses/cc-by-sa/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: false +date: 2009-12-20 12:23:45+00:00 +layout: page +slug: cc-by-sa +title: 'Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (cc-by-sa) ' +wordpress_id: 126 +--- + + * Domain of Application: Content, Data (latter 4.0 only) + +#### Full text + + * (v4.0) + * (v3.0) + * (v2.5) + * (v2.0) + * (v1.0; little-used/not recommended due to no upward compatibility) + +#### Comments + +The Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the conditions that the creator is appropriately credited and that any derivative work is made available under "the same, similar or a compatible license". + +#### How to apply + +Include a link to, or a full copy of the license you use, and something like the following: + + +> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike [version number] License. diff --git a/licenses/cc-by/index.markdown b/licenses/cc-by/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7d8d7c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/licenses/cc-by/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: false +date: 2009-12-20 12:22:57+00:00 +layout: page +slug: cc-by +title: 'Creative Commons Attribution License (cc-by) ' +wordpress_id: 124 +--- + +* Domain of Application: Content, Data (latter 4.0 only) + +#### Full text + + * (v4.0) + * (v3.0) + * (v2.5) + * (v2.0) + * (v1.0) + +#### Comments + +The Creative Commons Attribution license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited. + +#### How to apply + +Include a link to, or a full copy of the license you use, and something like the following: + +> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution [version number] License. + diff --git a/licenses/cc-zero/index.markdown b/licenses/cc-zero/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1d2345f --- /dev/null +++ b/licenses/cc-zero/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: true +date: 2009-12-20 12:25:37+00:00 +layout: page +slug: cc-zero +title: 'Creative Commons CC Zero License (cc-zero) ' +wordpress_id: 129 +--- + + * Domain of Application: Content, Data + * + +#### Full text + +See + +#### Comments + +Intended to be a 'public domain dedication', i.e. a waiver of **all** rights including those of attribution. + +#### How to apply + +You can use the CC license chooser. + +Alternatively, include with your material: + +EITHER: a link to the license/waiver plus text similar to the following: + + This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CCZero [version number] License/Waiver. + +OR (recommended): a full copy of the license/waiver. + + diff --git a/licenses/dsl/index.markdown b/licenses/dsl/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..73a0ce1 --- /dev/null +++ b/licenses/dsl/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: true +date: 2009-12-20 12:27:27+00:00 +layout: page +slug: dsl +title: 'Design Science License ' +wordpress_id: 133 +--- + + * Domain of Application: Content + Data. + +#### Full text + +http://www.pentangle.net/python/dsl.php + +#### Comments + +A fairly obscure license that, to our knowledge, has not been much adopted by anyone beyond its author. It has an interesting definition of 'source data' in relation to knowledge: + + "Source Data" shall mean the origin of the Object Form, being the entire, machine-readable, preferred form of the Work for copying and for human modification (usually the language, encoding or format in which composed or recorded by the Author); plus any accompanying files, scripts or other data necessary for installation, configuration or compilation of the Work. + + (Examples of ‚ÄúSource Data‚Äù include, but are not limited to, the following: if the Work is an image file composed and edited in PNG format, then the original PNG source file is the Source Data; if the Work is an MPEG 1.0 layer 3 digital audio recording made from a WAV format audio file recording of an analog source, then the original WAV file is the Source Data; if the Work was composed as an unformatted plaintext file, then that file is the Source Data; if the Work was composed in LaTeX, the LaTeX file(s) and any image files and/or custom macros necessary for compilation constitute the Source Data.) + +#### How to apply + +Include a link to, or a full copy of the Design Science License in your work, and something like the following: +{{{ + Copyright (c) [YEAR] [YOUR NAME]. + This work is made available under the terms of the Design Science License. +}}} + + diff --git a/licenses/eff-open-audio-license/index.markdown b/licenses/eff-open-audio-license/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..30283b9 --- /dev/null +++ b/licenses/eff-open-audio-license/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +author: mlinksva +comments: false +date: 2012-11-29 06:33:47+00:00 +layout: page +slug: eff-open-audio-license +title: EFF Open Audio License +wordpress_id: 654 +--- + +### EFF Open Audio License + +#### Full text + +http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal_version1.php + +#### Comments + +As of v2.0 merged with CC by-sa license: 'EFF designates the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license as version 2.0 of the Open Audio License.' [source on eff site](http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php) + diff --git a/licenses/fal/index.markdown b/licenses/fal/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b330c6c --- /dev/null +++ b/licenses/fal/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: false +date: 2009-12-20 12:28:14+00:00 +layout: page +slug: fal +title: 'Free Art License ' +wordpress_id: 135 +--- + + * Domain of Application: Content. + +### Full text + + http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ + +### How to apply + +Include a link to, or a full copy of the Free Art License in your work, and something like the following: + +{{{ +Copyright © [the date] [name of the author or artist] (if appropriate, +specify the names of the previous authors or artists) + +Copyleft: this work of art is free, you can redistribute it and/or +modify it according to terms of the Free Art license. You will find +a specimen of this license on the site Copyleft Attitude +http://artlibre.org as well as on other sites. +}}} + + diff --git a/licenses/gfdl/index.markdown b/licenses/gfdl/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f6a96fb --- /dev/null +++ b/licenses/gfdl/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: true +date: 2009-12-20 12:29:02+00:00 +layout: page +slug: gfdl +title: 'GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) ' +wordpress_id: 137 +--- + + * Domain of Application: Content. + +#### Full text + +[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html) + +#### Comments + +The GNU Free Documentation License is a copyleft license - which means that derivative works must be made available under the same or a similar license. + +The creators of the license recommend that it is used "principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference." Its most prominent user is Wikipedia. + +The GFDL is **only** considered conformant if you + +* don't use invariant Sections or cover texts +* don't include an "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications" section +* amend the DRM restriction (section 2) to be less broad (for example restricting to the requirement that the work is available without TPMs) + +Please see for more information: + +* [Debian legal summary](http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml) +* [ Nathanael Nerode on Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL](http://web.archive.org/web/20080515215935/http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html) + + +#### How to apply + +To use the GFDL, include a copy of the [full text of the license](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html) and the following notice in your work: + + + + Copyright (c) [YEAR] [YOUR NAME]. + Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document + under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 + or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; + with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover + Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU + Free Documentation License". + + + + + diff --git a/licenses/index.markdown b/licenses/index.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b963eba --- /dev/null +++ b/licenses/index.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,393 @@ +--- +author: ddie +comments: false +date: 2009-12-20 12:14:33+00:00 +layout: page +slug: licenses +title: Conformant Licenses +wordpress_id: 116 +--- + +*If you would like to propose a license to add to this page please follow our [license approval process](/licenses/process/).* + +This section of the site lists licenses that are conformant with the principles laid out in the [Open Definition](/okd). + +# Conformant Licenses + +The following licenses are conformant with the principles set forth in the Open Definition. + +* Domain = Domain of application, i.e. what type of material this license should/can be applied to. Note if you are looking for an open license for software, please see [Open Source Definition conformant licenses](http://opensource.org/licenses/). +* BY = requires attribution +* SA = require share-alike + + +### Conformant Recommended Licenses + + +
| License + | + +Domain + | + +By + | + +SA + | + +Comments + | +
| [Creative Commons CCZero](/licenses/cc-zero) (CC0) + | + +Content, Data + | + +N + | + +N + | + +Dedicate to the Public Domain (all rights waived) + | +
| [Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and Licence](/licenses/odc-pddl) (PDDL) + | + +Data + | + +N + | + +N + | + +Dedicate to the Public Domain (all rights waived) + | +
| [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0](/licenses/cc-by) (CC-BY-4.0) + | + +Content, Data + | + +Y + | + +N + | + ++ | +
| [Creative Commons Attribution](/licenses/cc-by) (CC-BY) + | + +Content + | + +Y + | + +N + | + +All versions 1.0-3.0, including jurisdiction "ports" + | +
| [Open Data Commons Attribution License](/licenses/odc-by) (ODC-BY) + | + +Data + | + +Y + | + +N + | + +Attribution for data(bases) + | +
| [Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0](/licenses/cc-by-sa) (CC-BY-SA-4.0) + | + +Content, Data + | + +Y + | + +Y + | + ++ | +
| [Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike](/licenses/cc-by-sa) (CC-BY-SA) + | + +Content + | + +Y + | + +Y + | + +All versions 2.0-3.0, including jurisdiction "ports"; version 1.0 is little used and not recommended because it is incompatible with future versions + | +
| [Open Data Commons Open Database License](/licenses/odc-odbl) (ODbL) + | + +Data + | + +Y + | + +Y + | + +Attribution-ShareAlike for data(bases) + | +
| [Free Art License](/licenses/fal) (FAL) + | + +Content + | + +Y + | + +Y + | + ++ | +
| License + | + +Domain + | + +By + | + +SA + | + +Comments + | +
| [UK Open Government Licence 2.0](https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/) (OGL-UK-2.0) + | + +Content, Data + | + +Y + | + +N + | + +For use by UK government licensors; re-uses of OGL-UK-2.0 material may be released under CC-BY or ODC-BY. Note version 1.0 is not approved as conformant + | +
| [Open Government Licence - Canada 2.0](http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada) (OGL-Canada-2.0) + | + +Content, Data + | + +Y + | + +N + | + +For use by Canada government licensors. Note version 1.0 is not approved as conformant + | +
| License + | + +Domain + | + +By + | + +SA + | + +Comments + | +
| [GNU Free Documentation License](/licenses/gfdl) (GNU FDL) + | + +Content + | + +Y + | + +Y + | + +Only conformant subject to certain [provisos](/licenses/gfdl) + | +
| [MirOS License](/licenses/miros) + | + +Code, Content + | + +Y + | + +N + | + +Little used + | +
| [Talis Community License](/licenses/tcl) + | + +Data + | + +? + | + +? + | + +Deprecated in favour of ODC licenses + | +
| [Against DRM](/licenses/against-drm) + | + +Content + | + +Y + | + +Y + | + +Little used + | +
| [Design Science License](/licenses/dsl) + | + +Data + | + +Y + | + +Y + | + +Little used + | +
| [EFF Open Audio License](/licenses/eff-open-audio-license) + | + +Content + | + +Y + | + +Y + | + +Deprecated in favor of CC-BY-SA + | +
+ Hi,
+ I came across your site and the work available there[1]. What you've got
+ looks great and from appearances it seems that the material is intended
+ to be 'open'[2]. However I couldn't see an explicit statement of this
+ fact such as a reference to an open knowledge license[3] so I'm writing
+ to find out what the exact situation is, specifically to ask you whether
+ the material is being made available under an open knowledge license of
+ some kind[3].
+
+ Regards,
+ [INSERT NAME HERE]
+
+ [1]: [INSERT LINK HERE]
+ [2]: http://www.opendefinition.org/1.0/
+ [3]: http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses/
+
+
+`
+
+### Doesn't Appear To Have Thought About It
+
+
+
+
+ Hi,
+ I came across your site and the work available there[1]. What you've got
+ looks great and I'd be interested in using it so I wondered whether it
+ is 'open knowledge' in the sense that it can be used, reused and
+ redistributed freely[2]. If it is intended to be open that's fantastic
+ and you might want to consider explicitly licensing your material using
+ an open knowledge license[3]. If it isn't intended to be open I quite
+ understand. In either case I look forward to hearing what the situation
+ is.
+
+ Regards,
+ [INSERT NAME HERE]
+
+ [1]: [INSERT LINK HERE]
+ [2]: http://www.opendefinition.org/1.0/
+ [3]: http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses/
+
+
+`
+
+## Templates for Emails About Open Definition Web Buttons
+
+Word-wrapped at 72 characters for convenience.
+
+### About the Open Knowledge Web Buttons
+
+
+
+
+ About the Open Knowledge Web Buttons
+
+ At the Open Knowledge Foundation (http://www.okfn.org/) we work to
+ promote open knowledge wherever we can. As one part of that we have
+ developed an 'open knowledge definition':
+ [http://www.opendefinition.org/](http://www.opendefinition.org/)
+
+ This is very similar to the open source definition but it adapted to the
+ case of 'knowledge' -- be that data, content or any other kind of
+ information (some more information about the Definition can be found
+ below as well as on the website).
+
+ As part of the work in developing the Definition we've produced some
+ open knowledge/open data web buttons which people can use to indicate
+ that the work they are producing is 'open':
+ [http://www.opendefinition.org/buttons/](http://www.opendefinition.org/buttons/)
+
+ Your project clearly shares exactly the concept of openness set out in
+ the Open Knowledge Definition. I was therefore wondering whether you
+ would consider placing one of these buttons on your site to indicate
+ this (I notice you already have a Creative Commons button on your site).
+
+
+`
+
+### Why Have an Open Knowledge Definition
+
+
+
+
+ Why Have an Open Knowledge Definition
+
+ The concept of openness has already started to spread rapidly beyond its
+ original roots in academia and software. We already have 'open access'
+ journals, open genetics, open geodata, open content etc. As the concept
+ spreads so we are seeing a proliferation of licenses and a potential
+ blurring of what is open and what is not.
+
+ In such circumstances it is important to preserve compatibility, guard
+ against dilution of the concept, and provide a common thread to this
+ multitude of activities across a variety of disciplines. The definition,
+ by providing clear set of criteria for openness, is an essential tool in
+ achieving these ends.
+
+
+`
diff --git a/science/index.markdown b/science/index.markdown
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cc85c29
--- /dev/null
+++ b/science/index.markdown
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+author: ddie
+comments: true
+date: 2010-02-19 15:13:09+00:00
+layout: page
+slug: science
+title: Open Data in Science
+wordpress_id: 270
+---
+
+Visit
+
+In February 2010 the Panton Principles were published, setting out a clear set of principles for Open Data in Science building on the Open Definition.
diff --git a/software-service/bg/index.markdown b/software-service/bg/index.markdown
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f323aad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/software-service/bg/index.markdown
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+author: markherringer
+comments: true
+date: 2011-11-13 09:45:52+00:00
+layout: page
+slug: bg
+title: 'Определение на отворени софтуерни услуги '
+wordpress_id: 530
+---
+
+# Въведение
+
+## Определението на отворени софтуерни услуги дефинира "отворен" в контекста на (софтуерните) онлайн услуги.
+
+Онлайн услуга, още позната като Софтуер като услуга (SaaS) е услуга предоставена от онлайн софтуерно приложение, което прави възможностите си, достъпни на потребителите през Интернет, чрез интерфейс (възможно е да е HTML възпроизвеждан от уеб браузър, като Firefox; през уеб приложен програмен интерфейс (API) или по друг начин)
+
+При онлайн услугите, за разлика от традиционните софтуерни приложения, потребителите не трябват да "притежават" (да са собственици или лицензианти) софтуера, за да го ползват. Вместо това, те могат да взаимодействат чрез стандартен клиент (като уеб-браузър) и да заплащат, в случаите, в които плащат, за потребяването на услуга, вместо за притежаването (или лицензирането) на самото приложение.
+
+## Определение
+
+Отворена софтуерна услуга е тази:
+1. Чиято данни са отворени, по смисъла на Определението за отворено знание, с изключение на данните, които представляват лични данни, които следва да бъдат достъпни само на потребителя (т.е. собственика на акаунта) и
+2. Чийто програмен код е:
+А. Свободен/Отворен софтуер (който се разпространява при условията на лиценз одобрен от OSI или FSF - вижте бележка 3)
+Б. Достъпен за потребителите на услугата
+
+
+Бележки
+1. Определението за отворено знание изисква технологията да е отворена. В този смисъл, примерно, ползването на данните не трябва да е ограничено от технологични средства, като контрол на достъпа и трябва да са достъпни в отворен формат
+
+2. Определението за отворено знание също така изисква данните да са достъпни по начин, който позволява програмно автоматизиране (т.е. чрез стандартизиран отворен програмен интерфейс или чрез даунлоад от определено стандартно място)
+
+3. Одобреният от OSI списък е достъпен от http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ а списъкът на FSF е на адрес: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
+
+4. За онлайн услуга, използването на лиценз за свободен софтуер или отворен код не е достатъчно, защото потребителите общуват единствено с услугата и не получават софтуера, което прави традиционните лицензи неприложими. От там е и необходимостта за второто изискване програмния код да бъде достъпен от всеки.
+
+5. APIs: за всички приложни програмни интерфейси, свързани с услугата, ще се предполага, че са отворени (което означава, че логиката им може да бъде копирана). Това естествено следва от факта, че програмния код и данните, които обуславят интерфейса са отворени.
+
+6. Важно е, че програмния код на услугата, следва да бъде достъпен за потребителите, по начин който не води до големи тежести за доставчиците на отворени софтуерни услуги.
+
diff --git a/software-service/index.markdown b/software-service/index.markdown
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7283d6f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/software-service/index.markdown
@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+---
+author: admin
+comments: false
+date: 2009-11-26 21:54:17+00:00
+layout: page
+slug: software-service
+title: Open Software Service Definition
+wordpress_id: 54
+---
+
+[Bulgarian](/software-service/bg/)
+
+## Introduction
+
+The **Open Software Service Definition** defines 'open' in relation to **online (software) services**.
+
+An online service, also known under the title of Software as a Service (SaaS), is a service provided by a software application running online and making its facilities available to users over the Internet via an interface (be that HTML presented by a web-browser such as Firefox, via a web-API or by any other means).
+
+With an online-service, in contrast to a traditional software application, users no longer need to 'possess' (own or license) the software to use it. Instead they can simply interact via a standard client (such as web-browser) and pay, where they do pay, for use of the 'service' rather than for 'owning' (or licensing) the application itself.
+
+## The Definition
+
+An open software service is one:
+
+1. Whose data is open as defined by the [Open Definition](../1.0/) with the exception that where the data is personal in nature the data need only be made available to the user (i.e. the owner of that account).
+2. Whose source code is:
+ 1. Free/Open Source Software (that is available under a license in the OSI or FSF approved list -- see note 3).
+ 2. Made available to the users of the service.
+
+### Notes
+
+1. The [Open Definition](../1.0/) requires technological openness. Thus, for example, the data shouldn't be restricted by technological means such as access control and should be available in an open format.
+2. The [Open Definition](../1.0/) also requires that data should be accessible in some machine automatable manner (e.g. through a standardized open API or via download from a standard specified location).
+3. The OSI approved list is available at: http://opensource.org/licenses/ and the FSF list is at: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
+4. For an online-service simply using an F/OSS licence is insufficient since the fact that users only interact with the service and never obtain the software renders many traditional F/OSS licences inoperative. Hence the need for the second requirement that the source code is made publicly available.
+5. APIs: all APIs associated with the service will be assumed to be open (that is their form may be copied freely by others). This would naturally follow from the fact that the code and data underlying any of the APIs are open.
+6. It is important that the service's code need only be made available to its users so as not to impose excessive obligations on providers of open software services.
+
+### Acknowledgements
+
+This definition was originally drafted thanks on the [open definition discussiong mailing list](http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss). A variety of people contributed to that effort as well as subsequent improvements and amendments including (in alphabetical order):
+
+* Dave Crossland
+* Francis Irving
+* Thorsten Glaser
+* Rufus Pollock
+* Evan Prodromu
+* Kragen Sitaker
+* Luis Villa
+
+## Open Service Web Buttons
+
+If you're providing an online service that's compliant with the Definition let people know by using an 'Open Service' web button:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+To add a button to your site just copy and paste the following bit of html into the relevant page on your site (or into the general footer or sidebar):
+
+
+[
+](http://opendefinition.org/ossd/)
+
+
+To use a different button (other than the blue one used in the example) just change the 'src' attribute to point to one of the other buttons:
+
+
+
+
+http://assets.okfn.org/images/ok_buttons/os_80x15_blue.png
+http://assets.okfn.org/images/ok_buttons/os_80x15_red_green.png
+http://assets.okfn.org/images/ok_buttons/os_80x15_orange_grey.png
+
+
+
+## Applying the Definition: Some Examples
+
+To make clearer the import of the Open Software Service Definition we provide some illustrative examples:
+
+### OpenStreetMap: Open
+
+* Code: The software that runs the main site is [GPLv2](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#1b._What_is_the_license_for_the_software.3F)
+* Data: [Open](http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright)
+
+### Google Maps: Not Open
+
+Note that despite the fact that Google Maps provide an 'open' API and that the service is currently available gratis for many uses, it is not an 'Open Service'. In particular:
+
+* Code: the code for running Google Maps (backend and frontend) is currently proprietary.
+* Data: the data (geodata etc) used in Google maps is currently proprietary (subject to copyright and/or database restrictions, with no open license granted).
+
+### Wikipedia: Open
+
+* Code: Mediawiki is currently F/OSS (and is [made available](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki)).
+* Data: Content of Wikipedia is available under an [open licence](https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy).
+
+### Kune.cc: Open
+
+A collaboration website using Kune as its engine. The software Kune is a descendant of the defunct Google Wave, now available as Apache Wave.
+
+* Code: [Open](https://gitorious.org/kune) and see [FAQ](http://kune.ourproject.org/faq-for-gnu/)
+* Data: Open; [FAQ](http://kune.ourproject.org/faq/#is-kune-100-freelibre-software-was-kune-built-using-any-proprietary-framework-or-library) notes "we try to promote free contents through a CC BY-SA default license in projects (which can be changed, of course)". It appears the kune.cc retains this default.
+
+### rizzoma.com: Not Open
+
+Like Kune.cc, a descendant of Wave... but closed. Maybe open in the fututre?
+
+* Code: Site footer includes "Rizzoma is an open source project. If you're interested in
+welcome to [this topic](http://rizzoma.com/topic/a5a8bfa0ced5ab2611cf5e365673a558/?view=topic_opensource) or contact us via support@rizzoma.com" but it appears the open source project is coming in the future rather than existing as of Janaury 2013.
+* Data: [ToS](http://rizzoma.com/about-terms.html) is very brief. No apparent public license nor intent to be open.
+
+
+## Background and History
+
+* Version: v1.1
+* v1.1 2008-10-08 (integrated changes suggested by Dave Crossland and Thorsten Glaser)
+* v1.0 2008-07-14.
+* v1.0b (2008-06-30)
+* v0.4: 2008-05 (tidying)
+* v0.3: 2007-09
+* v0.2: (first version on this site): 2007-07
+* v0.1: 2006-10
+
+This particular formulation originates from discussions taking place originally on the [okfn-discuss mailing list](http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss) in September and October 2006 (see in particular [this post](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2006-October/000177.html)) but owes much to [more recent (Summer 2007) discussions](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2007-July/000475.html) precipitated by activities at GUADEC 2007 (see [1], [2], [3], [4]).
+
+1. [We Need an Open Service Definition](http://blog.okfn.org/2007/07/18/we-need-an-open-service-definition/) -- blog post on the OKFN blog by Francis Irving which references [a post on Havoc Pennington's blog](http://log.ometer.com/2007-07.html#18)
+2. [Evaluating a Free/Open Service Definition (rough draft)](http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/07/22/evaluating-a-freeopen-service-definition-rough-draft/) posted by Luis Villa
+3. [This ongoing thread on okfn-discuss](http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2007-July/000475.html) -- this includes comments from a variety of people including Luis Villa, Mike Linksvayer, Rufus Pollock, Francis Irving and Saul Albert.
+4. [Free/Open Services Definition draft/discussion page](http://live.gnome.org/FreeOpenServicesDefinition) -- this is a draft definition put together by Luis Villa and posted on the GNOME 'live' wiki. In addition to the definition there is also an excellent listing on existing work and writing on this issue.
diff --git a/testing/index.markdown b/testing/index.markdown
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d8f9039
--- /dev/null
+++ b/testing/index.markdown
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+---
+author: admin
+comments: true
+date: 2009-12-07 13:37:10+00:00
+layout: page
+slug: testing
+title: Testing
+wordpress_id: 73
+---
+
+XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
diff --git a/update/index.markdown b/update/index.markdown
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..889ce9f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/update/index.markdown
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+---
+author: ddie
+comments: false
+date: 2012-11-27 16:13:55+00:00
+layout: page
+slug: update
+title: Updates
+wordpress_id: 637
+---
+
+No Content Found