Re: [spdx] OGL licenses


J Lovejoy
 

Hi Howard,

For the long name, we can go with the first option, as it’s your preference. If we later add other open government licenses, we can always add “(UK)” then - the full name is not as critical in terms of being immutable; it is the short identifiers that we endeavor to not need to change but for very extenuating circumstances.

I’m not sure what you mean by your “machine readable version”, but no, it is not a requirement to link the SPDX listing. 

As to changing/updating the license abbreviation in the text of the licenses (versions 2 and 3) to reflect the SPDX identifier - this is also not required. If and when there is another review at some point in the future, it would be ideal if your group might consider that (and if so, just let us know). 

As to the Welsh version - we generally deal with translations of licenses by putting a note in the Notes field and link to the translation, so I will add this for version 3. 

Incidentally, I had a look around the other info on licensing on your website. It’d be great if you might consider including a suggestion of the use of SPDX identifiers as an option for license notice along the lines as described here: https://spdx.org/ids 
Similarly, perhaps you are already aware of this effort, but if not, some of the info and goals your website includes, reminds me of an initiative to establish templates and best practices for governments contributing to open source - https://github.com/DISIC/foss-contrib-policy-template 


Cheers,
Jilayne


On Oct 15, 2018, at 6:24 AM, Davies, Howard <Howard.Davies@...> wrote:

Hi Jilayne
 
Many thanks for your work on this.
 
I’d be happy with the second, (or indeed any), of the options for the long identifier. My slight preference would be for the first example, but really for us the important thing is the listing, we are happy for any identifier that is clear and avoids confusion with any other state’s open government licence.
 
All I meant by my “as long as…” phrase was that if there was any SPDX requirement (as I then thought might be the case, but now believe is not) for us in the UK to amend our machine readable version of the OGL so as to link it to the SPDX listing, then that might be something which would take a time to get done. If there is no need for us to amend the machine-readable version, then by all means just forget what I said!
 
On your last point, I think to change the wording so that the abbreviation matched the SPDX identifier is likely to prove problematic here. I doubt I would be able to get authority to change the wording of the licence until the next time we have a formal review, and none is imminent. Is this a stumbling block? From our point of view the key thing is to achieve listing, and having mark-up to ensure that the abbreviation achieves a match is not something we would worry about. What do you think?
 
I take it there is nothing to be done regarding the Welsh language version of the OGL?
 
Kind regards
 
Howard
 
Howard Davies
Information Policy Manager
Tel +44 (0)20 3908 9196
 
Please note – email addresses at The National Archives have changed. My new email address is howard.davies@..., and all colleagues’ emails will also have had the .gsi element removed.
 
The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU
 
For Twitter content and updates on Re-use follow @KIMexperts
 
 
From: J Lovejoy <opensource@...> 
Sent: 12 October 2018 18:30
To: Davies, Howard <Howard.Davies@...>; SPDX-legal <spdx-legal@...>
Subject: Re: [spdx] Thursday SPDX General Meeting Reminder
 
Hi Howard (and moving to SPDX-legal list),
 
 
We are just about ready to merge the three OGL licenses into the license list and wrap up the 3.3 release. But I want to do a final check on the full name and identifier first:
 
 
            Short identifier:           OGL-UK-1.0
I think this makes the most sense and is consistent with keeping the version number at the end of the identifier
 
I’m a bit more conflicted on the full name, which is, admittedly, less critical in the sense that it is generally not used for machine matching - we could go with one of three variations:
            Open Government Licence v1.0
            Open Government Licence (UK) v1.0
            Open Government Licence v1.0 (UK) 
 
Do you have thoughts on this?  My inclination is that the second option would be consistent with the identifier and provide clarity when one is searching/looking at the SPDX License List, especially if other Open Government Licenses get added later. But it’s also not strictly necessary in light of the short identifier including “UK”. 
 
Also, can you explain what you mean by:
"(as long as that would not require us to open up the coding of the machine readable version to make that a change in quick time)”
 
Lastly, the abbreviation, “OGL”  and “OGLv2.0” is used in the license text itself in versions 2 and 3. If that was updated to reflect the SPDX identifier, we could simply accommodate that with markup indicating either would constitute a match. 
 
 
Thanks,
Jilayne
 


On Oct 4, 2018, at 6:33 AM, Davies, Howard <Howard.Davies@...> wrote:
 
Jilayne
 
Thank you for this. I don’t see there being any problem, from our point of view, with adding UK to the short identifier for SPDX listing (as long as that would not require us to open up the coding of the machine readable version to make that a change in quick time).
 
We are now on v3.0 of the OGL – the previous versions 1.0 and 2.0 are all still effective as the OGL is a perpetual licence, so they must persist for older material licensed under them. So there is no issue with versions 1.0 and 2.0 being added to the list, with suitable UK addition to the short identifier. There is also a Welsh language version of the OGL – would you require details of that? (it is just a translation, the terms are identical apart from Welsh instead of English).
 
What else would you need from us to get this moving forwards?
 
Many thanks
 
Howard
 
Howard Davies
Information Policy Manager
Tel +44 (0)20 3908 9196
 
Please note – email addresses at The National Archives have changed. My new email address is howard.davies@..., and all colleagues’ emails will also have had the .gsi element removed. 
 
The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU
 
For Twitter content and updates on Re-use follow @KIMexperts
 
 
From: Jilayne Lovejoy <opensource@...> 
Sent: 04 October 2018 00:32
To: Phil Odence <phil.odence@...>
Cc: Davies, Howard <Howard.Davies@...>; Paul Madick <paul.madick@...>
Subject: Re: [spdx] Thursday SPDX General Meeting Reminder 
 
Hi Howard,
 
I did see your previous email on the SPDX-legal mailing list, but hadn’t gotten a chance to respond yet.
 
I think you are correct that it was not someone from your organization who submitted it originally. I think we went back to that person with questions, but never got a response so it languished. We did log it in the Issues list in the current Github repo, when we moved to tracking things there (see: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/547 ) and more recently, in an attempt to clean up some of these old issues and made the decision to add the license, all versions to be consistent with our habit of adding all versions of a license, when it has multiple versions.
 
We are in the midst of the next release for the SPDX License List and would like to get the OGL in there for that, but one concern that came up was the identifier of “OGL-1.0” - particularly, “OGL” part - as someone found other government licenses with the same name. We can’t have duplicate short identifiers so it was suggested to add “UK” in the short identifier to avoid issues later if another government submitted their open license.  Do you have any thoughts or input on this issue?
 
Thanks,
Jilayne
SPDX legal co-lead



 

 

 
 
**************************************************************************************************************************
 
This email originates from the Internet and has been analysed for malware by Forcepoint Email Security Cloud.
 
 
If this email claims to come from a TNA colleague or department it should be treated with suspicion.
 
 
Use the PhishMe button to report any suspicious emails.
 
***************************************************************************************************************************
 
 


Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
National Archives Disclaimer
 
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the 
individual(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and 
have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. 
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do 
not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor 
endorsed by it.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

Join Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.