Re: French gov open license
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:05:58 + Ian Jackson wrote: [...] > I have read the licence PDF and it is a reasonable licence for open > data. I have read the license text too and I have some doubts. Section _Liability_ reads, in part: | The « Producer » guarantees that it makes the « Information » | available free of charge, under the freedoms and the conditions | defined by this licence. This makes me think that the license cannot be used, when the Producer distributes the Information commercially (i.e.: by charging a fee for the service of making the Information available, without of course imposing the payment of any royalty). It's true that commercial re-use is explicitly allowed in section _You are free to re-use the « Information » :_ | To exploit the « Information » commercially but I am not sure how the above warranty (that the Producer does not sell the Information) can be considered consistent with DFSG#1. Moreover I wonder what impact it may have on the alleged GPL-compatibility of the license under analysis. Another point is in section _Intellectual property rights_: | The « Producer » guarantees that the « Information » is not subject | to any « Intellectual property rights » belonging to third parties. Maybe it's just an issue with poor wording, but this makes me think that the Producer cannot use this license for Information not entirely under his/her/its "legal" control. If, for instance, the Information includes some part copyrighted by a third party, this is a no-go, even if the third party agrees to license his/her/its contribution under these terms! [...] > Commonly, we would want to know if it was GPL3+-compatible. I think > it probably is. I don't see any clauses which are not restrictions > which are already in the GPL3 in other terms, so complying with GPL3 > would also comply with this licence. > > There is one possible exception, in that the licence requires > > The re-use shall not mislead third parties or misrepresent the > content of the << Information >>, its source and its time of last > update. > > "Misrepresent the content" is a bit vague. If challenged, I would > argue that this is the same as the GPL3's requirement for "appropriate > copyright notice" perhaps read together with the GPL3 requirement for > notices of modification. I agree that the expression is a bit vague, but this could perhaps be considered a non-issue: the well known [zlib license] is [considered] GPL-compatible and it includes the following clause: | Altered [...] versions [...] must not be misrepresented as being the | original software. This clause is not identical to the above-quoted expression, but I think it's similar enough. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that the zlib wording is clearer and less vague, so perhaps you are right that this is indeed an issue, I am not sure... [zlib license]: <http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html> [considered]: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ZLib> As previously said, I am more worried about other clauses of this French gov open license. Finally, please note that this is yet another license that adds to the license proliferation problem. Why, oh why, the governments of some EU countries cannot help re-inventing the wheel by producing their own local legislation specific license texts?!? There are already a number of good, well-known, and simple licenses suitable for releasing non-copylefted free works: basically the [Expat license], the already cited [zlib license], the [3-clause BSD license], the [2-clause BSD license]. I am convinced that there's no need to go on producing new (contorted) license texts for the same exact purposes. [Expat license]: <http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt> [3-clause BSD license]: <https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause> [2-clause BSD license]: <https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause> -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpcvQaO3FJ1D.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: French gov open license
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 11:16:48 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: [...] > I think we agree; I'm not sure why you think it's disingenuous, but I'm > attempting to avoid the common situation where we are asked to judge a > license text divorced from the work and without seeing the grant of > license. Those are crucially important — as is, of course, the license > text itself. I acknowledge that a license text cannot be assessed for DFSG-freeness in a vacuum, as long as this means that we always have to keep in mind that analyzing the license text is only one step (although an important one) in the DFSG-freeness assessment process for a work. Other (already mentioned) considerations come into play, when assessing the DFSG-freeness of a given work. However, the license text analysis is usually one of the biggest steps in the assessment process and may be common to a number of different works. As a consequence, we can often factor it out, so that it is not repeated over and over again for distinct works released under the same exact license terms. In this sense, we can analyze a license text in a vacuum, provided that we then remember to take the other aspects into account, whenever we apply the analysis outcome to a specific work. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpVn0AJndcgU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: French gov open license
Ian Jackson writes:
> Ben Finney writes ("Re: French gov open license"):
> > More precisely, “pass DFSG” is not something we can ask of licenses.
> > Rather, the DFSG are for evaluating a *work* proposed for entry to
> > Debian.
> > […]
>
> I think this is rather disingenuous. […]
You've presented an example supporting my position:
> I have read the licence PDF and it is a reasonable licence for open
> data. But if used together with some program, it would need to be
> analysed for compatibility with that program's licence.
Yes. So, examining the license is not sufficient to say that a work is
DFSG-free; the work itself, along with license grant and the full
license text, are needed. Without those, “is it DFSG-free?” can't be
answered.
> But that doesn't mean that rejection for wrongnesses in the licence
> itself don't occur. There are plenty of examples. It can make sense
> to look at the licence and say "if the whole work was under this
> licence, and there were no other problems, it would be OK".
That's a pretty big “if”, as attested by many discussions over the
years in this forum :-)
I think we agree; I'm not sure why you think it's disingenuous, but I'm
attempting to avoid the common situation where we are asked to judge a
license text divorced from the work and without seeing the grant of
license. Those are crucially important — as is, of course, the license
text itself.
--
\ “Skepticism is the highest duty and blind faith the one |
`\ unpardonable sin.” —Thomas Henry Huxley, _Essays on |
_o__) Controversial Questions_, 1889 |
Ben Finney
Re: French gov open license
Ben Finney writes ("Re: French gov open license"):
> More precisely, “pass DFSG” is not something we can ask of licenses.
> Rather, the DFSG are for evaluating a *work* proposed for entry to
> Debian.
>
> Until we have a work to examine, with a grant of license from the
> copyright holders (and holders of other monopolies) in that work, the
> question of DFSG doesn't even come up.
>
> So, the question will need to be asked about a work proposed for entry
> into Debian.
I think this is rather disingenuous. The most common reason for a work
being rejected is indeed probably that some part of it is not actually
licenced under the ostensible licence for the whole package.
But that doesn't mean that rejection for wrongnesses in the licence
itself don't occur. There are plenty of examples. It can make sense
to look at the licence and say "if the whole work was under this
licence, and there were no other problems, it would be OK".
I have read the licence PDF and it is a reasonable licence for open
data. But if used together with some program, it would need to be
analysed for compatibility with that program's licence.
Commonly, we would want to know if it was GPL3+-compatible. I think
it probably is. I don't see any clauses which are not restrictions
which are already in the GPL3 in other terms, so complying with GPL3
would also comply with this licence.
There is one possible exception, in that the licence requires
The re-use shall not mislead third parties or misrepresent the
content of the << Information >>, its source and its time of last
update.
"Misrepresent the content" is a bit vague. If challenged, I would
argue that this is the same as the GPL3's requirement for "appropriate
copyright notice" perhaps read together with the GPL3 requirement for
notices of modification.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: French gov open license
Jérémy Lal writes: > I don't think there is such a thing named "recognized by DFSG". I agree. > A license can pass DFSG or not, and this one, after reading it, > seems to be okay. More precisely, “pass DFSG” is not something we can ask of licenses. Rather, the DFSG are for evaluating a *work* proposed for entry to Debian. Until we have a work to examine, with a grant of license from the copyright holders (and holders of other monopolies) in that work, the question of DFSG doesn't even come up. So, the question will need to be asked about a work proposed for entry into Debian. -- \ “For myself, I am an optimist — it does not seem to be much use | `\ being anything else.” —Winston Churchill, 1954-11-09 | _o__) | Ben Finney
Re: French gov open license
Hi Xavier, I don't think there is such a thing named "recognized by DFSG". A license can pass DFSG or not, and this one, after reading it, seems to be okay. Hopefully more experimented eyes will read it too. IANAL, Jérémy (x97). 2017-11-21 18:35 GMT+01:00 Xavier : > Hi all, > > French government uses now lo/ol license to publish its open datas: > https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Open_Licence.pdf > > "To facilitate the re-use of the « Information », this licence has been > designed to be compatible with any licence which requires at least the > attribution of the « Information ». For instance, it is compatible with > the « Open Government Licence » (OGL) of the United Kingdom, the « > Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 » (CC-BY 2.0) licence of Creative > Commons and the « Open Data Commons Attribution » (ODC-BY) licence of > the Open Knowledge Foundation." > > Can it be recognize by DFSG ? > > Regards, > Xavier > >
French gov open license
Hi all, French government uses now lo/ol license to publish its open datas: https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Open_Licence.pdf "To facilitate the re-use of the « Information », this licence has been designed to be compatible with any licence which requires at least the attribution of the « Information ». For instance, it is compatible with the « Open Government Licence » (OGL) of the United Kingdom, the « Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 » (CC-BY 2.0) licence of Creative Commons and the « Open Data Commons Attribution » (ODC-BY) licence of the Open Knowledge Foundation." Can it be recognize by DFSG ? Regards, Xavier
