Due diligence documentation of local open data use and attribution
KevinOs 于 2024年十一月 5日 以 English 发布A while back I had taken a look comparing my local OGL to others in our area that were approved and listed on the wiki. Noting the similarities to existing documents I added our local cities as well per their attribution requirements. This differs slightly from documentation the that the legal working group has produced here https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants
I’ve not heard back from the legal questions email with my question after a few days now. But wanted to keep productive and provide supporting due diligence I am able to help out on. This seemed like a reasonable platform to use for such.
Comparing the latest “reviewed and approved” OGL from Guelph https://explore.guelph.ca/pages/open-data-license
To Edmonton and Calgary which are in turn based on the Alberta licenses. https://data.edmonton.ca/stories/s/City-of-Edmonton-Open-Data-Terms-of-Use/msh8-if28/ https://data.calgary.ca/stories/s/Open-Calgary-Terms-of-Use/u45n-7awa/ https://open.alberta.ca/licence
The majority of the documents and verbiage are identical, the differences i am able to note are as follows:
- Preambles differ slightly for each document; however all roll up to the OGL - Canada
- General formatting
- Call out to relevant local attribution, acts
- Alberta, Calgary and Edmonton add an additional exemption for “Information or Record that are not accessible under applicable laws” with an extra definition for “Records” pointing to the Alberta freedom of information and protection of Privacy act. Guelf (and others) directly reference the act as “information not accessible under the municipal freedom of information and protection of privacy act”
… 查看完整日记文章