Re: [Talk-ca] Open Government Licence

[Steve Singer]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Paul Norman wrote:


From: Matthew Buchanan [mailto:matthew.ian.bucha...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:59 PM
To: OSM Talk-ca
Subject: [Talk-ca] Open Government Licence

Is this good news for OSM?


I'll be doing a full analysis later, but I believe the license is
currently incompatible with OSM because of a drafting error on the
cities' part.


Is this a drafting error on Vancouver's part or is the error in
the Open Government license text that all these governments are using as 
their template? (http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada ?)





Acknowledge the source of the Information by including any
attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s)
and, where possible, provide a link to this licence.



If the Information Provider does not provide a specific
attribution statement, or if you are using Information from
several Information Providers and multiple attributions are
not practical for your product or application, you must use
the following attribution statement:

Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence -

Vancouver.

It also defines Information Provider as the The City of Vancouver

OSM can only guarantee attribution in accordance with 4.2 of the
ODbL. This would be okay with the attribution required for
several Information Providers except that the only Information
Provider is the The City of Vancouver, and as there is only one
City of Vancouver, there is never a scenario where there are
multiple Information Providers.


Wouldn't the  multiple Information Providers kick is as soon as you 
combined data from Vancouver with any other source such as the existing OSM 
database?






___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Open Government Licence

[Paul Norman]

 From: Steve Singer [mailto:st...@ssinger.info]
 Cc: 'Matthew Buchanan'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Open Government Licence
 
 Wouldn't the  multiple Information Providers kick is as soon as you
 combined data from Vancouver with any other source such as the existing
 OSM database?

No. OpenStreetMap is not The City of Vancouver and therefore not an 
Information Provider as defined in the license.


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Open Government Licence - Canada

[Paul Norman]

 From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com]
 Subject: [Talk-ca] Open Government Licence - Canada
 
 [I guess Bernie's original subject of ‘G8 leaders sign open data charter
 of principles’ might've made this important announcement sink without
 trace.]
 
 Bernie Connors wrote:
 
  Is there an official OSM opinion on the compatibility of the Open
  Government Licence and OpenStreetMap?  Here is a link to the licence
  on the data.gc.ca website –
 
  http://www.data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada
 
 It would be very helpful if it were deemed acceptable. The somewhat damp
 few who made it out to the Toronto Mappy Hour last night discussed it,
 but couldn't come up with anything official.

The good: It's very similar to the OGL, which is compatible. This should 
minimize the analysis.

The bad: It's only somewhat similar, leading to yet another regional license to 
analyze.

The ugly: They put terms specific to the federal government in the license and 
expect every city and province to modify the license. This is going to not work 
well.


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca