I got word back indicating that the OGL - Canada 2.0 is ODbL and CC BY compatible. This makes it easy for us to use.
I want to offer my profound thanks to the federal government and the people I talked to in it for being willing to answer questions about licensing. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:29 PM > To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.' > Cc: 'Levene, Mark'; 'David E. Nelson'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Open Government License - Canada > > 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-t...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
