[CivicAccess-discuss] Montréal disposera de la licence ouverte CC BY 4. Une pr emière au Canada en matières de données ouvertes. Un avantage pour les citoye première au Canada en matières de données ouvertes. Un avantage pour les citoyens

[Tracey P. Lauriault]

>From Teresa,

(We,re trying to figure ou the list problem)




> On 2014-02-21, at 5:32 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
>
> This is a message from Teresa Scassa
> *****************************************************
>
> From: Teresa Scassa
> Sent: February-21-14 8:18 AM
> To: civicaccess discuss; gerry at tychon.ca
> Subject: RE: [CivicAccess-discuss] Montréal disposera de la licence
> ouverte CC BY 4. Une pr emière au Canada en matières de données ouvertes.
> Un avantage pour les citoye première au Canada en matières de données
> ouvertes. Un avantage pour les citoyens
>
> I'm not sure that it is necessary to know much more about the referenced
> legislation in these government licences, so I don't agree that these
> clauses make the licences particularly more complex from a user's point of
> view. These clauses are boilerplate CYA clauses for government - (there's
> one in the UK open licence as well). Governments are not allowed  to
> provide, as open data, any of the information that is excluded from
> disclosure under (in this case) provincial access to information and
> protection of privacy legislation. So this type of information should
> simply not be in the open data set in the first place. The clauses are
> there in an attempt to limit governments' own liability should, by some
> internal error, they provide a data set containing data they were not
> legally allowed to make public. Each province will have a slightly
> different clause because each province has its own legislation, which may
> have a different title. But the principle is the same in each case.
>
> Even if a user knew these laws inside out they would probably have no way
> of knowing whether the data in the data set was a third party's
> confidential business information, to use one example. The laws are there
> to govern what government's disclose. Knowledge of the law is thus more or
> less unnecessary, and in my view, these clauses don't have much of an
> impact on users and shouldn't create any incompatibilities between
> licences. The only scenario where there might be a problem is if a citizen
> complained that a particular data set violated their privacy rights (or a
> company complained that a particular set contained its confidential
> business information) and an adjudicator or court ruled that this was
> indeed the case. At that point, the data set might have to be withdrawn and
> a user of the data set would not be licenced to use the problematic data.
>
> Teresa
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:25 PM, David Eaves <david at eaves.ca> wrote:
>
> So my understanding is that the BC license is different - but all the
> others are the same. That is certainly the intention that they all be
> identical accept the title which references the jurisdiction. (again except
> BC which is frustrating).
>
> Of course, now that there is a group of governments aligned around the
> license, you can send them feedback about how they could make them
> identical. I think they are interested in hearing this.
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2014, at 2:05 PM, James McKinney <james at opennorth.ca> wrote:
>
> > Yes, they are different licenses.
> >
> > I just spoke to Kent Mewhort, who explained that there are other
> differences between the licenses. For example, BC [1] has an additional
> exemption which makes it a more problematic license: "This license does not
> grant you any right to use: (b) Information or Records not accessible under
> the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (B.C.);". Ontario
> [2] has a similar exemption: "This licence does not grant you any right to
> use: (b) Information or Records not accessible under the Freedom of
> Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario);" Alberta [3] has its
> own vague exemption: "This licence does not grant you any right to use: (b)
> Information or Records that are not accessible under applicable laws;".
> >
> > The licenses, on the surface, look the same, but those one-line
> differences actually make the licenses quite complex, given that you need
> to know a fair amount about the referenced/imported legislation.
> >
> > 1. http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/local/dbc/docs/license/OGL-vbc2.0.pdf
> > 2. http://www.ontario.ca/government/open-government-licence-ontario
> > 3. <http://data.alberta.ca/licence>
>
>

-- 
Tracey P. Lauriault
http://traceyplauriault.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/moving-to-ireland/
https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault
http://datalibre.ca/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://civicaccess.ca/pipermail/civicaccess-discuss/attachments/20140221/69e34df6/attachment.html>