okfn / opendefinition Goto Github PK

I have added all of the text I can find texts for that are listed as conformant. The licenses that I do not have texts for are:

other-at.json
other-open.json
other-pd.json
ukclickusepsi
ukcrown-withrights
ukpsi

If someone has the text for these and can point me at it, I will convert to markdown.

Suggested at https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-December/001199.html

Maybe also add templated notice to previous versions pointing at current version?

UKCES put out "LMI For All" with data on education, skills and jobs.

LMI for All is an online data portal which connects and standardises existing sources of high quality, reliable labour market information with the aim of informing careers decisions. This data is made freely available via an API for use in websites and applications.

Data is supposed to be open but:

• Data only available via an API (you have to register for)
• Terms and Conditions state that data is licensed under OGL but then proceed to add non-open conditions - http://www.lmiforall.org.uk/terms-and-conditions/. See highlights below

Terms

Terms and Conditions

1. Introduction

1.1. The terms and conditions detailed in this document govern the access and use of the LMI for All online data portal. LMI for All will be referred to in this document as the ‘online portal’. By accessing or using the online portal, you agree to the terms set forth in this document and to comply with them at all times. We reserve the right to amend or replace the terms and conditions at any time.

1. Online Portal Operator

2.1. The online portal is operated by a consortium led by the Warwick Institute of Employment Research (IER) and including Pontydysgu, Raycom and Rewired State on behalf of The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) Renaissance House, Adwick Park, Wath upon Dearne, South Yorkshire, S63 5NB.

1. Licence

3.1. UKCES owns the foreground intellectual property rights of the online portal.

3.2. UKCES gives you permission to use this online portal on the terms and conditions detailed in this document.

3.3. All datasets included in the online portal are licensed under the Open Government Licence. All datasets included in the online portal should be used only under the conditions specified within the Open Government Licence. Details of the Open Government Licence can be found here.

1. Use of the data

4.1. UKCES has taken every reasonable step to ensure that all data is included in the online portal is robust. However, no warranty, express or implied, is given as to its accuracy and UKCES does not accept any liability for error or omission. UKCES is not responsible for how the information is used, how it is interpreted or what reliance is placed on it.

4.2. For any applications that may be developed or prototyped, it is expressly prohibited for applications, third-parties, intermediaries, and sources external to those owned/operated by UKCES, or its appointed contractors for the LMI for All project, to store, in any form (Including, for example, local caching for any time period), data returned by the LMI for All API. This condition is made to ensure data integrity, confidence, privacy regards, provenance, and respect of the agreements of data-source agreements.

4.3. In line with our obligations under Data Protection (the 1998 UK Act and EU Directive 95/46/EC), it is expressly prohibited for (i) data transfers (ii) and notwithstanding the above, for data to be stored; outside of the EEA and/or Safe Harbor [sic] facilities.

1. Availability

5.1. Access to the online portal is granted via request. UKCES reserves the right to deny requests at any time.

5.2. We will endeavour to ensure that the online portal is available 24 hours per day without any interruptions. However, as the online portal is in development, we reserve the right to make the online portal unavailable at any time or to restrict access to parts or the entire online portal without notice.

5.3. During the period of development of the online portal, we cannot guarantee that the API will remain unchanged.

1. Linking

6.1. The online portal may contain links to other websites. UKCES accepts no responsibility or liability for the content of other websites.

1. Liability

7.1. UKCES does not guarantee that use of the online portal will work with all hardware and software which may be used by users.

7.2. UKCES will not be responsible to you in any circumstance whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential loss (all three of these terms include, pure economic loss, loss of profits (whether direct loss or indirect loss), loss of business, depletion of goodwill and any similar loss) however caused in connection with the use of the online portal or the use or relying on any information or other materials contained in the portal. This also refers to the way data is used or presented by any users of the online portal.

7.3. This online portal uses security measures to protect the material we control from loss, misuse and alteration. However, we do not accept responsibility for any alteration or manipulation of our data once it has been released on the online portal.

1. Termination

8.1. Access to the online portal is taken as agreement on your part not to misuse the online portal through the introduction of material which is technologically harmful.

8.2. Breach of this provision will result in access being rescinded and we reserve the right to criminally prosecute.

8.3. UKCES may withdraw its permission for you to use the online portal without giving you any warning.

1. Privacy

9.1. UKCES complies with all applicable Data Protection laws in the UK. The data included in this online portal is non-disclosive and individuals cannot be identified. Our Privacy Statement can be found here.

1. Freedom of Information

10.1. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides a general right of access to information held by Public Authorities. UKCES is subject to the provisions of the Act.

1. Entire Agreement

11.1. These Terms and Conditions contain the entire agreement between the parties in relation to the use of the online portal and supersede any other statement and understanding relating to this matter.

1. Law and Jurisdiction

12.1. These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with English Law and all parties shall submit to the jurisdiction of the English courts.

I can't see why but the Spanish translation of 2.0 is not being generated as a page on the site.

• #47 - switch to github pages
• #7 - Integrate licenses.opendefinition.org
• #2 - Integrate texts of licenses
• Integrate versioned open definition
• Have a blog or not (?)

Here are the DRAFT German open data license v2.0

Data licence Germany - Zero - Version 2.0
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RqQqkCt7t9yO5YMrRsXEMnoS5cCDzUtbDf-tN0Upq1A/edit#

Data license Germany - attribution - Version 2.0
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z8aKuEoyPw_T_LZNBTH1O_ZSJCta9N1YgWSiX5zXzw4/edit#

and here are the answers to the questions as provided by the Federal German Ministry of the Interior (BMI):

I. State the rationale for the new license.

The “data licence Germany” focusses on public sector data which is provided under German public law. Without the “data licence Germany”, German administration would not have a proper way to define Open-Definition-compatible terms of use for their data, as it is still controversial discussed if civil-law-based licences like Creative Commons may be used by the federal administration and especially for data.

II. Is the license specific to an organization/place/jurisdiction? We generally frown on such licenses (see proliferation below), only making politically expedient exceptions (eg, the organization is a national government; and these are categorized as “non-reusable).

cf. answer I: The “data licence Germany” is developed especially for public sector data in Germany (like the the Canadian or British Open Government Licences). A categorization as “non-reusable” is acceptable for us.

III. Compare and contrast to any existing similar approved as OD-conformant licenses.

The “Data licence Germany” is available in two variations: The “Data licence Germany - Attribution” demands an indication of the data source (like CC-by). The “Data licence Germany - Zero” doesn’t impose any restrictions (like CC-Zero). As stated in answer 1, both version were developed to be comparable to Creative Commons, but within the restrictions of German public law.

IV. What benefit does the new license bring over already approved OD-conformant licenses which would outweigh the costs of license proliferation?

cf. answers I and III.

V. Is the license compatible with existing OD-conformant licenses?

By alignment (permissions identical or a superset of existing license, conditions identical or a subset) and/or express permission to license the original and/or adaptations of the licensed work under an existing license?

Yes. Both variations of the licence do not define any constraints regarding the reuse of data under the “Data licence Germany” – with the exception of attributing the author in case of the “Date licence Germany – Attribution” .

VI. Provide a link to any public drafting process (e.g., conducted on a public communication forum of some sort; multiple drafts presented to that forum) for the license.
The licence was discussed and drafted in an (off-line) working group, led by the Federal Ministry of the Interior and with members from federal states as well as from civil society organisations like Wikimedia and OKF. Internet-based platforms were not used in this process, so that a link cannot be provided.

Please note that I was asked by the BMI to solicit the advisory board for comments on the licenses (which Mike, Herb and Andrew already did) and to submit the license for approval as an open license on compliance with the OD.

Section 1. and 1.2 do not use italics for "must".

https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-November/ discussion.

"The work must be provided in a convenient and modifiable form such that there are no unnecessary technological obstacles to the performance of the licensed rights. Specifically, data should be machine-readable, available in bulk, and provided in an open format (i.e., a format with a freely available published specification which places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, upon its use) or, at the very least, can be processed with at least one free/libre/open-source software tool."

• Is the word "Specifically" helping?
• Data should or must be...?
• Does published specification matter? Does an ad-hoc format that is not restricted by any means make a work non-open? Consider CSV variations.
• Should "or, at the very least" be "and"?
• What does "processed" mean? Possibly something stronger needed. For a long time (probably could argue still, though not my experience) OO.o (now LO) could "process" OOXML files but not well.

Should the clause effectively require that no rents must be paid by anyone, to anyone (patent holder or software vendor) for any use in order for the work to be open, that is comport with " anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose (subject, at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and openness)"?

• Downside
  • more tecchy
• Upside:
  • we could include licenses api, license texts etc
  • more techhy

Note we don't blog much as it is ...

• Migrate content
  • Migrate core content
  • Migrate redirects ... (cf dataprotocols.org for how we did this with a template)
• Migrate theme
  • Basic css etc
  • Sidebars etc
• CNAME
• Migrate DNS

Additional, possible, related changes

• Change /update/ to /news/ or /blog/ (more normal)
  • will need redirect

Update. April 2015

• We probably aren't going to actually merge licenses repo itself.
• What we do want to do is merge the API / UI from licenses repo / licenses.opendefinition.org to here
  • though even here there is an argument to leave stuff in licenses and migrate web stuff to gh-pages
• licenses repo will then slim down to being data only

TODO: work out what we to migrate here and what not

Original proposal

Source https://github.com/okfn/licenses

Merge process:

• licenses => api/1/
• bin/ => scripts/
• js + index.html => api/

I would like to link to a Open Format Definition page with a set of conformant open formats. This would be similar in concept to the Conformant Licenses page.

I would like to link to the Open Format Definition page from the ODI Open Data Certificate site. To earn an Open Data Certificate you are asked a number of questions including, "Is this data in a standard open format?". The help text is shown in the image below and the "Read more..." link goes to a UK government site, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183962/Open-Standards-Principles-FINAL.pdf

I think it makes sense to have a global definition that can be leveraged by a number of tools.

Are there plans to work further on the Open Format Definition page beyond updating section 1.3 Open Format in the Open Definition v2.1?

http://opendefinition.org/buttons/

The "blue" and orange/grey buttons do not pass WCAG 2.0 colour contrast minimums. Please see improved versions attached (sorry, I'd submit a pull request but I can't find where these images are in a repo, only on the assets server of okfn...)

In Section 1.2 of the draft Open Definition 2.1 replace "preferably" with "should"

Current:
"The work must be available as a whole and at no more than a reasonable one-time reproduction cost, preferably downloadable via the Internet without charge."

Proposed:
"The work must be available as a whole and at no more than a reasonable one-time reproduction cost, and should be downloadable via the Internet without charge."

Some eg http://opendefinition.org/okd/arabic/ say "Open Definition" in English.

I'm not sure the likes of http://opendefinition.org/okd/arabic/ (tradition continued from previous translations) is ideal. Perhaps all should be moved to 2 or 3 letter language codes?

OD 2.1 should remove this ambiguity. Brought up at https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/010652.html

The translations of right to left languages like Arabic and Hebrew are displayed from left to right and cannot be read properly, something needs to be done about this.

Should OD translations be of a particular OD version, and version included in URL?

I'm happy with deciding no -- each translation linked to should just be most recent that has been translated. But seems worth considering.

https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/010625.html suggests:

The "No Charge" section could be made clearer. It is acceptable to
charge for distribution so long as the charge is not some sort of
license fee.

For example, say I want to operate a mail order geodata service, If I
charge for the service of putting the data on a DVD and sending it to
you in the post, that is OK so long as I don't try to prevent you from
then putting it on your FTP server.

This is treated in the "Access" section so this isn't a substantive
change, only a suggestion that this could be made clearer. Perhaps
moving the Access section to be adjacent to the No Charge section
would be enough.

This repo would contain license texts of all licenses we review and approve for archival and reference purposes.

cf https://spdx.org/licenses/

See https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-December/001186.html

All translations are currently of 1.1 or 1.0 (2.0 is current). Notices, perhaps templated, could be added to 1.1 and 1.0 that there is a newer version, and in the case the current version is not available in the language in question, call for translation.

We have had http://opendefinition.org/buttons/ for years and the images are widely used (esp as stickers - see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data)

Could look to update these and perhaps rebrand as "badges" (now the common term)

• Better way to track use
• Mozilla open badges support (?)
• Updated designs
• Clearer statement that you should pass the requirements
• Open data "inside" for apps using open data

Hi,
Please attribute the definition properly.

This is a problem with many "open" definitions on the net, you're not the only one. But it happens enough that it's getting annoying. Please properly attribute your definition as derivative as follows:

"The original Debian Free Software Guidelines, and the Debian Social Contract of which they are a part, were created by Bruce Perens and the Debian Developers. Bruce later used the same text in creating the Open Source Definition. This definition is substantially derivative of those documents."

And it would not be bad to add this: "Richard Stallman was the first to push the ideals of software freedom which we continue."

I'll give you a little FAQ:

Why doesn't the Open Source Initiative site attriibute the OSD properly? Well, at times they've not liked me. Those folks seem to be gone now. Then again, their web site has been edited many times and maybe it's just an unintentional omission. I guess I should talk with them.

What was the role of Ean Schussler? Ian copied me on an email exchange with Donny Barnes of Red Hat in which Ean complained that Red Hat did not state their social contract with the community. Seeing this, I decided that Debian should make such a statement, and the Debian Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines are the result. So, Ean has taken a bit more credit, on the Debian web site, than he really should have.

How was the document changed on the OSI site? They added "10. License must be technology-neutral". IMO this was already implied by #6, "no discrimination against fields of endeavor", but no problem with making it even more clear.

What relationship is the Open Source Definition to the Free Software Definition? Richard Stallman created a Free Software Definition in the GNU Manifesto, which was contained in the first "GNUs Bulletin", a paper document distributed around MIT. It definitely precedes the Open Source Definition, but astonishingly none of us were aware of it when creating the Debian Free Software Guidelines and if the document existed on the Internet we had back then, we didn't know. Bruce Perens emailed Richard Stallman a copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and Richard wrote back "This is a good definition of Free Software" without pointing out his own version. So, it took quite a few years before we were even aware that Richard had written his own definition. Richard has made his old definition more prominent becuase he is still uncomfortable with "Open Source" emphasizing source code rather than freedom. And that's a good point. All of us "Open" folks are standing on Richard's shoulders and we should acknowledge that.

I added this license as a subset of what was available at : http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2619&Itemid=209

The other sections of this page include things like web cookies and email updates so they didn't seem to belong in a license, plus, the section title for section 6 is titled "Your License of the Unistats Dataset" which to me meant that this section is the actual license.

In any case, I am not 100% sure if I have this right so am raising the issue. If I don't get any objection to closing it in a few weeks, I will consider this sufficient and will close the issue.

The content on opendefinition.org has to be assumed to be non-open by the casual browser. :-/

Disappeared from footer at some point between http://web.archive.org/web/20120818073852/http://opendefinition.org/ and http://web.archive.org/web/20120911060236/http://opendefinition.org/

This may be a general OKFN wordpress theme issue.

(Note this would be rather ugly so long as gh-pages hosted because only meta/js redirects supported)

https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/010623.html suggests:

stable URIs for the different version. So

http://opendefinition.org/od should redirect to
http://opendefinition.org/od/2.0

and the previous ones remain available at

http://opendefinition.org/od/XXX

https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/010624.html suggests:

If you are soliciting changes, the language throughout seems to use
the words SHALL, MUST NOT, MAY, etc in an RFC2119 sense. If this is
the case, perhaps a note with a reference so that others know how to
interpret these words. If this is not the case, the way in which they
are to be interpreted could be mentioned to stop those of us with a
habit of reading RFCs getting confused.

Arguably a license that is incompatible with all other licenses, and not already widely used, limits severely what a licensor is actually able to do in terms of making adaptations. Raised in https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-December/001190.html and replies.

What: rename buttons to badges both in url and in content of page.

Why: "Badges" are a more appropriate term of art (at least today) than "buttons" i think.

@mlinksva @hlainchb wdyt?

I noticed that http://opendefinition.org/od/ and http://opendefinition.org/od/2.0/en/ are currently out of sync. At the moment, the only difference seems to be commit 1c6425d. The question is, however, if it is practical to keep the two documents in sync manually, or if a redirect from http://opendefinition.org/od/2.0/en/ to http://opendefinition.org/od/ would be the better solution — which is actually related to #63.

• add license text to repo; see http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000425.html
• review for conformance; ongoing threads

http://www.dati.gov.it/iodl/2.0/

Suggested at https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/010623.html

http://opendefinition.org/licenses/odc-pddl/ is currently tagged as licensed CC BY, which is rather odd for a public domain dedication.

The links in there to
http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and-licence/
and
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/odc-pddl/
are actually not links, and the first of these URLs is broken anyway.

In "at least one free/libre/open source software tool" it has been suggested that a definition eg OSD be cited, see discussion at https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-December/thread.html#1178

Needed for #68

The definition was previously called an "Open Knowledge Definition", currently it's the "Open Definition". Still, most translations use the previous name, and in some cases both - the Czech reads "Open Definition - Definition of Open Knowledge". Guidance on this would be appreciated. In Poland, one concern is that "Open Definition" is a much less clear name with regard to the scope of the definition than "Open Knowledge Definition".

"Data must be machine-readable and should be provided in bulk where possible."

"where possible" seems redundant.

"Data must be machine-readable and should be provided in bulk." seems equivalent.

From http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

• MUST - This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
• SHOULD - This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
  carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

Notes are in google doc here.

Markdownify and post at http://opendefinition.org/updates/ :-)

Also could be nice to add all arising issues in this issue tracker here so we track them :-) (if we're getting really fancy we could add a dedicated tag "actions-{meeting-date}"

http://www.cvr.dk/Site/Forms/CMS/DisplayPage.aspx?pageid=128

Used from e.g. http://www.cvr.dk/Site/Forms/CMS/DisplayPage.aspx?pageid=136

It clearly the intention that an OD license gives permissions unreservedly...

1.1. The work must be available under an open license (as defined in Section 2). Any additional terms accompanying the work (such as a terms of use, or patents held by the licensor) must not contradict the terms of the license.

However this clause implies that required permissions may not be explicitly given.

2.2.7. The license may require modifiers to grant the public additional permissions (for example, patent licenses) as required for exercise of the rights allowed by the license. The license may also condition permissions on not aggressing against licensees with respect to exercising any allowed right (again, for example, patent litigation).

I presume that this allows for licenses that happen to have all the bases covered (e.g. CC0 explicitly excluding patents but explicity including sui generis database rights, COIL including patents but not mentioning SGDR, or MIT/Expat failing to mention either). But isn't this a flaw?

My understanding is that: few (no?) permissive/lax/liberal/copyfree licenses perfectly account for all of these, GPL and Apache are specific only on patents, and no license has a generic clause against future IP encroachment (which I think of as poop creep). And my understanding is that this is a genuine problem, beyond the scope of the OD to solve. But excluding popular but flawed licenses would be a good idea? I'm no expert and would be happy to be corrected if I'm being Chicken Little :D

Start with data?

Good idea from Mike Linksvayer on list

http://data.worldbank.org/summary-terms-of-use

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/0,,contentMDK:22547097~pagePK:50016803~piPK:50016805~theSitePK:13,00.html

http://data.worldbank.org/summary-terms-of-use

• You are free to copy, distribute, adapt, display or include the data in other products for commercial and noncommercial purposes at no cost subject to certain limitations summarized below.
• You must include attribution for the data you use in the manner indicated in the metadata included with the data.
• You must not claim or imply that The World Bank endorses your use of the data by or use The World Bank’s logo(s) or trademark(s) in conjunction with such use.
• Other parties may have ownership interests in some of the materials contained on The World Bank Web site. For example, we maintain a list of some specific data within the Datasets that you may not redistribute or reuse without first contacting the original content provider, as well as information regarding how to contact the original content provider. Before incorporating any data in other products, please check the list: Terms of use: Restricted Data
• The World Bank makes no warranties with respect to the data and you agree The World Bank shall not be liable to you in connection with your use of the data.

This is only a summary of the Terms of Use for Datasets Listed in The World Bank Data Catalogue. Please read the actual agreement that controls your use of the Datasets, which is available here: Terms of use for datasets. Also see World Bank Terms and Conditions.

Hi, I would like later to include the Portuguese translation to this repo. Is that OK? How are translations version control being done? Best, Tom

/source was where OD and OSSD files where, but they now mostly duplicate what is under /od and /software-service. Seems /source should go away, and /od where versions, tranaslations etc should be committed to minimize barrier to deployment.