Open Knowledge
Contents

Defining Open in Open Data, Open Content and Open Knowledge
03 August 2013 by Mike Linksvayer

14 June 2013

##Participants

  • Baden Appleyard
  • Jo Ellis
  • Herb Lainchbury
  • Mike Linksvayer (chair)
  • Peter Murray-Rust
  • Rufus Pollock
  • Andrew Stott

##Agenda

  1. Release of O[K]D 1.2; see https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000428.html

  2. OKD or OD for the main definition name; see https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000427.html

  3. Disposition of OSSD (software service); see https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000429.html

  4. Outstanding review/notice of existing licenses

    1. 3 very similar licenses:

      1. UK OGLv2.0 with formal conformance request (live update on this if representative is on call) https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000424.html

      2. OGL Canada 2.0 with formal request https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000425.html our feedback on an earlier draft at https://opendefinition.org/2013/01/31/ogl-canada-proposal-feedback/

      3. OGL Alberta 2.0 informally forwarded to list for comments https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000415.html

    2. Datenlizenz Deutschland; we sent feedback, Daniel can update on response if on call; see https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000382.html

    3. City of Calgary Open Data License requested approval; discussion uncovered various problems; offer of more formal feedback not replied to https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000374.html should we issue formal non-conformance notice?

  5. Enhancing the submission and review process for licenses (including publication of results)

    1. Add proliferation policy? https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000373.html

    2. Other suggestions? Re publication, blog each accept/reject? Where?

  6. Does anyone want to work on licenses.opendefinition.org? See https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000414.html for some random thoughts.

  7. Future AC membership; zero members in global south unacceptable. Suggestions for invitation?

  8. Start thinking about who wants to/should chair in 2014

  9. Reminder to look over published bios

  10. Other outreach/collaboration

Call Notes

1. Release of O[K]D 1.2; see https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000428.html

  • RP: +1 on this. Perfect world we will get a diff in github for review.

  • ML: review of CC BY/BY-SA 4.0 for OD compliance

    • ACTION: HL to review with support from Andrew

  • ML: we should reach out to Open Access + Open Education

    • RP: [ACTION: RP] I can ask Ross Mounce for Open Access

    • Open Education: [ACTION: Baden] Delia Browne in Australia

  • ACTION: HL to review

2. OKD or OD for the main definition name; see https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000427.html

  • RP: Open Definition [for Data / Content / Knowledge] seems good.

  • Baden / Herb / Andrew: like breadth, simplicity of “Open Definition”

DECISION: Open Definition by default.

3. Disposition of OSSD (software service); see https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000429.html

Mike: In light of all this, how about this plan for the current term:

  • Continue with non-prominence of the OSSD on the site
  • I’ll prepare a minor update which just makes the page more presentable and send here for confirmation

  • Participants may or may not wish to re-evaluate in the next term (eg a new chair in 2014, or some other definition of “term”)

  • RP: I’m happy for keeping but not highlighting atm

  • RP: this is very important but we are not prioritizing atm

DECISION: as per Mike’s suggestions

4. Outstanding review/notice of existing licenses

*UK OGLv2.0 with formal conformance request (live update on this if representative is on call) **https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000424.htm*l

  • RP: special appreciation to the process the National Archives has gone through on this

  • ALL: this appears to be conformant and a great improvement on the previous version.

  • DECISION: this will go to a final vote on list once we have an absolutely final version. Advice right now is this is conformant.

OGL Canada 2.0 with formal request https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000425.html our feedback on an earlier draft at https://opendefinition.org/2013/01/31/ogl-canada-proposal-feedback/

OGL Alberta 2.0 informally forwarded to list for comments https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000415.html

  • HL: OGL Alberta being used in the wild

  • ML: let’s ping them re fact there will be an update to OGL original

  • ACTION: HL you are going to review UK new version and compare with the OGL Canada + OGL Alberta and report to list

Datenlizenz Deutschland; we sent feedback, Daniel can update on response if on call; see https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000382.html

  • ACTION: [ML] Ping Daniel on list. Short summary of where we are at and can we publish the formal letter on the site news.

City of Calgary Open Data License requested approval; discussion uncovered various problems; offer of more formal feedback not replied to https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000374.html should we issue formal non-conformance notice?

  • RP: Let’s do it

  • ACTION: [HL] draft feedback post (markdown) and circulate to list for review

5. Enhancing the submission and review process for licenses (including publication of results)

  1. Add proliferation policy? https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-March/000373.html

  • RP: strongly support this.

    • Explicitly: duplication is a reason to be resistant to reviewing conformance.

      • Require a statement of motivation and difference when someone submits a license

    • If they press we would not refuse to to conformance

    • Specific category of “recommended” licenses (versus non-recommended)

  • ML: cf opensource.org process

  • ACTION: [ML] ping back to Kent on list

  1. Other suggestions? Re publication, blog each accept/reject? Where?

New process

ACTION: [ML] update https://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ as per this

Also correct ref to open source definition

ACTION: Add a menu item for process to top menu. Add info at top of licenses page to link to process.

ACTION: [RP] - merge licenses repo - see https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/7

ACTION: [RP] - plan for storing license texts - https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/2

6. Does anyone want to work on licenses.opendefinition.org? See https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000414.html for some random thoughts.

  • Does anyone rely on the specific json published at licenses.opendefinition.org? This may say something about how careful to be.

A few people.

  • is_okd_compliant and is_osi_compliant seem suboptimal names. OKD and OSI aren’t equivalents and “compliant” is vague; only “approved” would be unambiguous. Can these be changed? Noticed via https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/12

AGREED: change to od_approved, osi_approved

ACTION: [ML+RP] check with users

What does domain_content/data/software actually mean? Whatever the license creator says? What informed wisdom agrees with? What people do? What bodies have approved licenses? Noticed via https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/15

  • If UK OGL is really intended to be used with software – also via https://github.com/okfn/licenses/pull/15 – should we not be recommending vetting by OSI? And/or depending on the meaning of “domain” per above, maybe not marking it as a software license.

RP: They really should go via OSI then

  • How are versions expected to be reflected in json published at licenses.opendefinition.org? Right now, they aren’t. If were used in building a chooser, as suggested on the site, what would choosing say

  • What are the 3 “other” licenses in https://licenses.opendefinition.org/#all-licenses about? I can’t figure out why their compliance statuses are listed as they are.

  • It seems a pity to not use the same short identifiers as https://spdx.org/licenses/ … and probably easier, to link to the spdx page for each license.

RP: we could

  • I think it’d be grand to get opendefinition.org out of wordpress, but not a pressing need. Anyone eager to do the work?

AGREED: this can wait.

  1. Future AC membership; zero members in global south unacceptable. Suggestions for invitation?

  • RP: Big +1 here

  • Suggest various people to invite:

    • ACTION: [AS] World Bank person

    • data.gov / US Gov

    • Global south

      • data.gov.in

      • dados.gov.br (RP can intro)

      • any other orgs we can think of

      • Moldova: [AS] follow up to see if there is someone

      • Russia: [AS]

    • Someone from UK National Archives

      • ACTION: [ML?] would you follow up with Jo Ellis

    • Research councils

ML: do we have a standard invite template?

A: nearly; what I used for most recent invites, will send to Andrew, Rufus

8. Start thinking about who wants to/should chair in 2014

9. Reminder to look over published bios

https://opendefinition.org/advisory-council/

this is a wordpress site

10. Other outreach/collaboration