I was offline yesterday and thus missed the official launch
of the federal
government's open data portal.
Like many, I think is great that the government has finally moved on
this issue as Canada has trailed far behind many other countries in
making government data openly available for reuse for far too long. The
immediate reaction to the launch included some disappointment at the licensing
terms, as David Eaves quickly
pointed
to restrictive language that would even stop someone from using the
data "in any way which, in the opinion of Canada, may bring disrepute
to or prejudice the reputation of Canada." Treasury Board Secretary
Stockwell Day responded
to the concern by indicating that was not the intent and that the
language would be addressed.
That too is good news, but I think it is important to identify the
source of the licensing language and the larger issue at play. First,
the licensing terms, including the disrepute provision, have been used
by the government for several years. The licence
terms
at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which has offered open data for
several years, features the same language on a webpage that was last
modified in 2008. In fact, the GeoConnections program, which
disseminates geographic data, published a 184
page best practices guide
in 2008 (and that was version 2) that discusses licensing terms in
great detail and includes several samples. In each case, the
licence
includes the disrepute provision. While it may be true that few people
ever read the licence - Transport Canada published
the new GC Open Data Portal licence weeks before yesterday's launch and
no one seemed to notice - the terms are important both because they can
be used to later restrict activities and because they reflect the
government's view of the rights of Canadians to their data.
The government may revise the licence by removing the disrepute term,
but I think a larger issue will remain.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareFriday March 18, 2011 |
|
View
|