Template:Did you know nominations/Open Government Licence

Open Government Licence



 * ... that the United Kingdom government's Open Government Licence (wordmark shown) is compatible with the CC-by licence?
 * Comment: Chimes well with our mission.
 * Comment: Chimes well with our mission.

Created by Mike Peel (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 23:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC).


 * The relevant line in the article does not have an inline citation as required by the Within policy criteria, consider adding one :) other than that it's good, but not particularly extraordinary. Certainly interesting, though. --MarkTraceur (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The citation is on the factoid on the body, not the repetition of it in the lede. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg - Agree with Andy that it is inline - Ref1 covers it. Length. Age. Qty of refs. Hook fine. Suggest this for January 1st picture lead. Victuallers (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC) (@MarkTraceur - sorry to jump in - do count this as your review Victuallers (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC))
 * No problem about jumping in. I disagree that ref1 covers it - the article talks about "work[ing] in parallel with...Creative Commons", but doesn't mention compatibility and doesn't specifically mention CC-BY. ref3 also mentions CC generally, but only to say that the OGL is "based on" the CC family of licences. I don't see any obvious reference to the fact that they're compatible, here, so until that's added I suggest holding off. --MarkTraceur (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 3 says "Based on the world-leading Creative Commons family of licences, the new licence works in parallel with them and mirrors their Attribution Licence", with the words "Attribution Licence" linked to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mirroring is also not the same as being compatible! Unless I see a specific statement from a reliable legal source saying that the OGL is "compatible with", i.e., literally those two words, the CC-BY license, I seriously doubt the accuracy and verifiability of the hook here, especially given what I know about licenses...oh, but wait, the actual text of the license says that CC-BY 4.0 is compatible. You should really just link to that. --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest using 'interoperable' instead of 'compatible', as that's what the license states. I've added a reference to a legal opinion on the interaction of the two licenses. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Scrap that; v1 of the license said "interoperable". version 2 says "These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)