cc'ing to a few people who I have talked about this with in the past. Some governments in Canada have released data under the Open Government Licence - Canada, version 2.0. This is yet another new license. Some people have asked if we can use datasets available under this license.
http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada contains the full text of the version the Federal government is using. It is an attribution license and in a perfect world would be ODbL compatible. Of course we've seen plenty of attribution licenses screw something or other up. What is not obvious is that they expect other levels to modify the license to localize it with the information of their attribution statement and local laws, but let's start with the Federal one first. Once that's done we can look at BC, AB, Nanaimo, Vancouver... etc. One of the statements in the consultation on this license was "The change of the attribution statement from OGL v1.0 to be one specific to the federal government reduces the ability to reuse this license by other jurisdictions (e.g. provinces) and will increase the number of licenses that have to be analysed." The origin of this license is the OGL 1.0, a UK license. The principle difference between UK and Canadian law is that database right does not exist in Canada. http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ lists OGL Canada 2.0 as an Open Definition conformant license. The question that matters for OSM is, can OGL Canada 2.0 datasets be released under the ODbL. One issue raised as problematic in some versions of the license is "Personal Information" For OSM, I do not see this as an issue. "Personal Information" is information about an identifiable individual, but datasets we would be interested in are information about places, not individuals. Third-party rights are a rights-clearing issue and something we'll need to check before using any source. Names, crests, etc and other IP rights would not be found in datasets of interest to OSM. Attribution is an odd one because they refer to information providers in the plural, but define it in a way so that it is only singular, so it's not clear which part of the attribution requirements applies. The ODbL requires that any copyright notices be kept intact for derivative databases. Produced works require a notice reasonably calculated to make any Person [...] aware that the content was obtained from [the database]. Attribution looks ODbL compatible, provided we figure out what statement to use. I'm not really sure where to take it from here in terms of an analysis. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk