Notes from Open Definition Call December 2015

Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:37:00 +0000

Participants

Herb Lainchbury
Mike Linksvayer
Luis Villa
Aaron Wolf
Rufus Pollock

Agenda

Authentication and Openness (and Open APIs)
- this is https://opendefinition.org/ossd/index.html related
license review process logistics
KOGL
Scottish Parliament Open License v2.0
USA
plan for 2016

Summary

Authentication and Openness (and Open APIs)
- http://blog.ldodds.com/2015/11/25/how-can-open-data-publishers-monitor-usage/
- “I’ll note from the start that the open definition doesn’t have anything to say about whether a login is permitted or not permitted.”
- push to the list - is there some ambiguity - it has always been our view that requiring login is not open - do we need an FAQ or some explanation? Openable?
  - I’ve (Rufus) posted here :
    - https://discuss.okfn.org/t/login-requirements-compliant-or-not-with-open-definition/1674 and we can discuss
License Review Process Logistics
- where do we log requests / mentions?
- where do we maintain the list of in-review?
- where do we maintain the list of those that have gone through the process?
- do we maintain an archival copy? if so, where? As attachment on the forum during discussion probably at least
KOGL
- ready to go : https://discuss.okfn.org/t/korea-open-government-license-kogl/899
Parliament Open License v2.0
- ready to go : https://discuss.okfn.org/t/scottish-parliament-open-licence-version-2-0/1646
USA
- is state and local level data automatically in the PD? Luis responded on Forum.
Plan for 2016
- OSSD
- Rufus: Promote 2.1 and engage publishers
Forum
- Herb to announce: list to go to moderated status - done
- all communications to go to forum from this point forward
Action:
- Herb to discuss Chair logistics with Luis

Notes from Open Definition Call October 2015

Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:37:00 +0000

Participants

Herb Lainchbury
Mike Linksvayer

Agenda

OD 2.1 communication plan
approval process
- topic note from Aaron: lack of clarity around the primary purpose of release-candidate phase: broader, public announcements prior to finalizing
license repository
licenses awaiting approval

Summary

Communications Plan
- OKFN blog
- OD blog (referring to OKFN blog)
- okfn list
- okfn forum
- od forum
- reach out to Creative Commons to see if they would be interested in a post
- fix links
Process
- https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/gh-pages/source/open-definition-revision-process-dev.markdown
- new process seems like a pretty good attempt and worth trying. we will review before starting next OD version.
- re: Aaron’s note above, we could state the purpose more literally in bullet 5 or 6
- Herb to send a note to Aaron asking for an edit to the process -
License Repository
- https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/gh-pages/licenses/index.markdown
- we will use inreview directory to list licenses currently undergoing review (remove Surrey)
- when a license is submitted properly we will put a markdown version into the inreview folder for our own use
- chair will send out a Topic in the forum to discuss

Notes from Open Definition Call August 2015

Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:37:00 +0000

Participants

Herb Lainchbury
Rufus Pollock
Aaron Wolf
Mike Linksvayer

Agenda

OD 2.1 final draft
AOB
- Open Definition Badges
Other Issues?

Summary

Public domain: maybe some small clarification in the preamble
General
- Discussions of principle vs pragmatic application.
  - e.g. raw source for everything vs pragmatism around e.g. video (requiring raw source for all of that)
- Shared goal both of something powerful clear but also widely used and adopted - we care about this being practical for publishers and others.
1.3 Machine Readability
The work must be provided in a form readily processable by a computer and where the individual elements of the work can be easily accessed and modified.
Comment from Aaron: I feel uncomfortable with having zero written guidance about the interpretation of “individual elements”. What if we removed “individual”? seems excessive and redundant anyway…
1.4 Open Format
The work must be provided in an open format. An open format is one which places no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, upon its use and can be fully processed with at least one free/libre/open-source software tool. The work should be provided in the form preferred for making modifications to it.
1.4 Machine Readability - old one _The work should be provided in "machine-readable" form, that is one in which the content can easily be accessed and processed by a computer, and which is in form in which modifications to individual data/content elements can easily be performed._
The work must be provided in “machine-readable” form, that is one in which the content can easily be accessed and processed by a computer, and which is such that access and modification to individual data/content elements can easily be performed.
RP’s wording: “…appropriate for working with and/or modifying the individual data or content elements.”

Notes from Open Definition Call June 2015

Sun, 09 Aug 2015 19:53:00 +0000

Participants

Herb Lainchbury
Mike Linksvayer
Aaron Wolf

Agenda

state of OD 2.1
OD Web Site Structure
OD Summary Statements
Proposal to move OD discussion to forum
Licenses waiting for approval
Other Issues?

Summary

state of OD 2.1
- are we there yet?
- discuss changes
- https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown
- change “available” to “provided” everywhere
- leave “should” in 1.3
- there are still 6 tickets
- Mike to add reference to RFC2119
- move the “should be compatible” to the license preamble
OD web site structure
- main vs gh-pages
- let’s move away from master -> gh-pages
OD Summary Statements
- three versions. we’ve settled on one.
- are there any issues with proceeding to syncrhonize them? [no]
Proposal to move OD discussion to forum
- pros, cons, impact?
- herb will send a note giving folks a chance to raise objection, if none received then we will move
Licenses waiting for approval
- structure - where should we store them?
- what to do with licenses that are inreview forever? (BC)
- follow FSF model - maximally compatible, open and rejected (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)

Notes from Open Definition Call February 2015

Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:14:00 +0000

Participants

Herb Lainchbury
Mike Linksvayer
Timothy Volmer

Agenda

state of OD 2.1
IMF license for data reuse
recommendations to Surrey
licenses waiting for assessment
license approval process and communications check-in
open data and APIs

Summary

state of OD 2.1
- need to review the proposed changes on github
- Herb will again outline the changes and communicate these to the list; discussion settling down
- need to get feedback from okfn-discuss and okfn-local
- possibly get official @okfn twitter, etc. to tweet that this is happening to solicit any comments/feedback
- https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown
IMF license for data reuse
- already in place
- is this solely a license or combo license/tos
- do we need to assess licenses where there’s little chance to change and where we do not know the creator of the license
- IMF is high profile
- smaller orgs tend to look to larger orgs for leadership
- let’s reach out to them?
- ask on the list if anyone has a contact we can reach out to (Herb)
recommendations to Surrey
- sent out last Friday
- Herb to follow up
- ideally Canadian federal govt will entertain a having a reusable license that sub-nationals can use as is done in the UK
licenses waiting for assessment
- create a queue of licenses on github?
- possibly submit as issue to track
- but volume is low and handling it ok on email list too
- gpl v3 review, especially since CC BY-SA 4.0 one way compatibility process with gpl upcoming
- license level National
- what sorts of things should our recommended list
license approval process and communications check-in
- okfn-discuss, okfn-local
- possibly social media heads up from @okfn
- also there’s the “updates” section of OD website; few posts there but could revive
open data and APIs
- OD could try to keep up with this issue
- open software services definition - https://opendefinition.org/ossd/
- could have general discussion of challenges/problems; focus on government use case
- Herb will follow-up after OD 2.1 is done

Notes from Open Definition Call December 2014

Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:27:58 +0000

Participants

Herb Lainchbury
Aaron Wolf
Peter Murray-Rust
Andreas Langegger

Agenda

licenses waiting for assessment
- ML notes community notice added to process, see: https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-December/001179.html
- non-conforming licenses and what to do about them
deciding what licenses ought to go through the conformance process
goals and timing for v2.1
- ML notes post-2.0 feedback documented in https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/labels/2.1
- 2.2.6 rewording
- what other points need to be addressed
translations
web site restructuring

Summary

list of license could be published publicly on the web site somewhere as they are considered (i.e. in the pipeline)
non-conformant licenses - when initiated by 3rd parties, we should send a courteous letter letting them know it’s being considered, and then a follow up with the outcome
some formal statement that if a third party submits a license, we have some regular approach for contacting the author / license entity
we should consider licenses even if they are not explicitly requested
would be interesting to have a general sense of the scope of quantity of licenses overall
we could simply list as many as we are aware of and focus on prioritizing rather than excluding
being able to make general statements about
2.2.6 - it makes sense to have a look at improving the parsability of this clause
1.3 - if we’re not going to be firm about the open format then it calls into question why the clause is here at all.
Refer to OSI and FSF for definition of open software
We could make explicit to translators that it is ok to use Open Knowledge Definition instead of Open Definition in translations where it makes sense in their language
Discussion about a new badge being developed for sites that either publish or consume open data as part of their operation. This would not replace the current open data badge, but would rather provide an opportunity site wide for both consumers and producers. Users would register to use the badge and usage metrics would be collected. Based on a trust-network model. Should be released in the next week or two.

Notes from Open Definition Call August 2014

Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:27:58 +0000

Participants

Herb Lainchbury
Andrew Stott
Mike Linksvayer
Tim Vollmer
Rufus Pollock

Agenda

discuss v2.0
communication plan
sharing with other lists for feedback?
approval process and license category proposed update (ideally live with 2.0 as it addresses best practices we decided to not address in definition), see https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-April/000841.html
Non-open OGL + terms license for some UK gov-related data (https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/44)
Migration of opendefinition.org to static site/gh-pages https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/5#issuecomment-51871836
Badges / buttons: https://opendefinition.org/buttons/ - updating these - https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/46

Summary

Communication Plan

communication plan on release of v2.0 - should send to the larger group? probably past the time for more discussion; should just give a heads up announcement to lists that this is happening

draw up list of communities we want to notify, e.g. lists
- [Rufus] Open Knowledge
- [tvol] CC lists (licenses, community, perhaps Open Policy Network)
- [Luis] OSI
- [Luis] Wikipedia/wikimedia
- Open Data lists generally (e.g. open-government, OGP …)
- [Rufus] Sunlight …
- [??] Code for America
- [tvol] LAPSI group, COMMUNIA
- [Andrew?] World Bank
- [Andrew] OPSI (Office Public Sector Info)
- [Andrew?] LinkedIn Group(s)?
- [Andrew] Future Gov Asia
- [tvol] US Gov - OSTP / 18F (alert people from http://theunitedstates.io/licensing/)
- [Herb] Canada

Announce(s)

Target: mid-Sept

Press Release [Herb + comms person]

What is Open Definition - defining open in open data and open content
v2.0 release - a milestone
Why this matters

=> Actually PR and put on major blogs (e.g. Open Knowledge, Creative Commons, World Bank, …)

Appendix to PR

Full announce
No change for existing licenses

Detailed Announce for OD.org

Goal
Highlight changes
Substantive changes (if any)
No change to status of existing conformant licenses (which you can find at …)

Tweet: …

Email draft:

Approval Process

new status for conformance
looking at the license pages, approval process may not need much more work - some tweaks in questions.
licenses categories may need some more thought ( what does recommended actually mean and how does it relate to conformant ).

Notes from Open Definition Call June 2014

Sun, 10 Aug 2014 15:22:58 +0000

Participants

Herb Lainchbury
Mike Linksvayer
Timothy Vollmer
Andrew Katz
Rufus Pollock
Luis Villa

Agenda

Status of action items from previous meeting
OD 2.0 progress report and discussion
Approval process and license category proposed update, see https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-April/000841.html

Summary

is there a date we’re shooting for on 2.0? no let’s just get it right, but there are a few licenses in the queue for review, for better or worse
2.0: most edits been incorporated into the new draft
still open for comments

OD 2.0 review:

ACTION: Herb will push ahead and get us to 2.0 draft in as close to it’s final form and we will pick up the discussion from there. This will include taking out the comments as our goal is to make the points as clear as possible without the commentary. ( perhaps a separate “guide” document for reviewers would be useful instead of the comments and links that are in OD 2.0 draft right now.

Rufus suggested swapping section 1 & 2 (deferred)
Rufus suggested swapping section 1 & 2 (deferred)
remove sub-points on 2 (yes)
wording of “licensed rights” is legalese?
pull request on new wording for 2.1.3? aaron
new bold suggestion from aaron - patents and other legal restrictions; herb’s suggestion is to leave new things out at this point; for 2.0 we wanted to do a split and to have a positive tone; push to “good suggestions for next time”
mike: 1.1.3 says derivatives must be allowed to be distributed under same license, but suggestion is could be any open framework; let’s think about first principles and have it make sense to those not familiar with open licenses; basically would make 1.1.3 less specific; push to list for more discussion
impartiality stronger than non-discrimination; which to use? (rename to “non-discrimination”)
- Quote: “The license must not discriminate against persons or groups of persons”
mike: conditions common in other open licenses but not listed as acceptable here? e.g. CC licenses wouldn’t be acceptable because no-DRM not listed at 1.2; will this become a laundry list? mike: we should have as close of a complete list as we can (similar to other definitions); new conditions that are weird should be able to be dealt with; stewards should be able to look at the list and know with high level of certainty whether their license is in compliance or not andrew: would free/open source software licenses be accepted under the definition? possibly but OD is built upon OSI; we don’t want to especially exclude them but OD not primarily serving them
Mike will suggest language for the 3 points he raised on the list ** “convenient and modifiable form” dealing
Kent’s suggestions: 1.1.8: should the def be saying “license must grant permissions” when in some cases no permission is required (e.g. public domain)
- at top put note to the effect license grants permission unless no permission necessary - copyright - tweak wording in preamble?
- Agreed changes:
  - 1.1 The license must irrevocably grant (or allow) the following
  - Introduction: The term license refers to the legal conditions under which the work is made available. Where no license has been offered this should be interpreted as referring to default legal conditions governing use of the work (for example, copyright or, in some cases, public domain).
AGREED: swap sections 1 and 2
Andrew: access must be free of technological obstacles too - looking at 2.1.2;
rufus: merge issue #7
create issues for existing troubling licenses - yes
ship by OKFest next month?

RP comments

https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-May/000857.html
- Also s/open data format/open format/g in section 2.1.3

Notes from Open Definition Call April 2014

Fri, 06 Jun 2014 22:24:07 +0000

Participants

Mike Linksvayer
Herb Lainchbury
Chiaki Ishikawa

Agenda

status of action items from previous meeting
OD 2.0 progress report and discussion
Discussion of Japanese translation suggestions submitted by ishikawa (https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-March/000810.html)
OKFest meeting

Summary

Had some trouble with the hangout so had to create a new one as it seems the existing one wasn’t re-usable after all. Will try this as calendar invitation in the future as well as the usual notice.

Discussion of OD 2.0

Japanese Translation

Discussion about translations in general, consider a process for translations in general. ACTION: Herb to examine to existing “how you can help” text on OD web site and see if it needs more content about translation.

ACTION: Mike to put Japanese translation into github

ACTION: ? to notify Chiaki of the location of the Japanese translation

ACTION: Chiaki will fork the translation, make the changes and then make a pull request.

Suggestion from Chiaki: English could be the official version and other translations could refer to the English as the official version and translations are for convenience.

OK Fest

Agreement that this might be a good venue to finalize the OD 2.0 discussion if it’s not already accomplished by then.

Notes from Open Definition Call February 2014

Fri, 04 Apr 2014 04:10:24 +0000

Previous call notes. Next call 2014-04-10 (2nd Thursday of even months) at 15:00 UTC.

Participants

Andrew Stott
Herb Lainchbury
Rufus Pollock
Mike Linksvayer

Agenda

goals for 2014
review status of OD 2.0 as I feel we’ve not had sufficient time to discuss. we’ll have to try to keep this high level as it’s easy to get stuck in the details, which may be better discussed on the list.
heading review - Herb
intro - Mike
do we know what’s missing / problematic areas / areas of agreement?
next steps?
I would like a discussion of ideas around non-proliferation of Licenses. Is the OD 2.0 expected to address this? Is there something else we can be doing (refine the process, make it available to publishers).
do we want to continue to hold off on further license decisions until OD 2.0 is published? (BC and AB)

Summary

do we want to continue to hold off on further license decisions until OD 2.0 is published? (BC and AB) Summary

Actions

[Andrew] Section 4.1 review and then email the list
[Herb] Section 3.1 + 3.2 review and update (then email the list)
[Mike] Conformance process (recommendations)
[Andrew] ping potential PhDs re being “Open Definition Secretary” and overseeing license review process (checking on new licenses coming in, emailing the list, doing a first pass check (optional))

Discusions of v2.0 Open Definition

Current version https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-dev.markdown

HL talked about how v2.0 calls for the separation of the test of the license from the test of a particular work.
like the way the works section
HL to edit section 3 (license) and make a recommendation
AS to edit section 4 (works)
we can discuss these things on the list
Delete 3.1.7 on privacy (invite kfogel to state the case for the privacy clause)

Agreed on having separate documents for Conformance process (see action}

All the stuff from recommendations in current open def draft (s3.3) Emphasize may be strictly conformant but will be heavily recommended against [Future] Commentary - e.g. privacy stuff

Consider adding a list of licenses (to the repo) that are in the queue to be looked at
RP proposed a license conformance secretary role

AOB

http://theunitedstates.io/licensing/ - FYI Notes re v2.0 possible headings
1. Introduction
2. Terminology
3. Open Licenses 3.1 Required Permissions 3.1.1 Use 3.1.2 Redistribution 3.1.3 Reuse (formerly Modification - I may have missed why this was being renamed, maybe there is good reason) 3.1.4 Separation (a new required permission?) 3.1.5 Compilation (the positive form of v1.1 clause 11) 3.1.6 Application (formerly Application to Any Purpose) 3.1.7 Privacy
3.2 Acceptable Conditions 3.2.1 Attribution 3.2.2 Integrity 3.2.3 Access (formerly Access and Restrictions - not sure what this is for, downstream work? for later discussion)

3.3 Recommendations for Open Licenses 3.3.1 Reuse (formerly Reusable) 3.3.2 Compatible 3.3.3 Coverage 3.3.4 Understandable
1. Open Works 4.1 Mandatory Conditions 4.1.1 Open License (formerly License and Licensing Information) 4.1.2 Available (formerly Access) 4.1.3 Open Format (formerly Absence of Technological Restrictions)
4.2 Recommendations for Open Works