IATI data licensing (for unencumbered data use!)

(Herman van Loon) #9

Thanks @petyakangalova for summarizing this thread in this very clear action list.

As pointed out by @SJohns above, the ''Other" category is rather vague and it is tempting to choose. My preference would be to exclude them from the list of acceptable licences.

Might it be an idea to summarize the main features of each license type on the IATI website so that new publishers can make an informed decision?

1 Like
(SJohns) #10

Great summary and steps forward @petyakangalova - look forward to seeing what happens. The core list looks fine to me. The organisations I work with use CC in the main so I’m not sure of the use cases for the ‘other’ categories - other people will have more input I’m sure.

(Andy Lulham) #11

Yes, thanks @petyakangalova and everyone.

Re. Step 2: here are the lists of organisations using the “Other” open licenses:

Would probably be useful to contact some of the organisations on these lists (e.g. UNOPS; Sida; EC DEVCO to name three) just to get an understanding of their choice.

(Mark Brough) #12

Great to see this moving forward! 100% in favour of removing the first set (i.e. no longer allowing it to be selected, and encouraging publishers to re-select a compliant license).

I understand some of the “other” licenses can be country-specific variants of other CC licenses, e.g. similar to the UK Open Government License (which IIRC is more or less equivalent to CC-BY). I think several countries may have policies to use their own equivalents (e.g. France, Germany, USA), so might be worth checking with those publishers… But as @andylolz says, perhaps the fact that they have stated the license is OKD compliant is sufficient!

(Josh Stanley) #13

Hi all,

Just a note to say that an email will be going out this afternoon to our main contacts at all Orgs where their License type is one of the ‘others’; inviting them to join this discussion.

1 Like
(Maria Mo) #14

Hi there and thanks for your mail Josh. Back in the day, we chose: OKD Compliant::Other (Attribution) as a license, because in 2011 there’s was less developed Creative Commons guidance.

We would be fine to change our licensing to ‘OKD Compliant::Creative Commons Attribution’.

The question from my side is: now that we know that we would like to change the licencing category, how would we best go about it? Is there an option to change the status ourselves or would the technical team need to change the settings for us?

Maria / UNOPS

(Josh Stanley) #15

Hi Maria,

Thanks for getting in touch.

You are able to change the License yourself by logging into the Registry and selecting OKD Compliant::Creative Commons Attribution from the License drop-down.

We are still working with the Registry’s hosts to ascertain our options with regard to publishers who do not change their license themselves in the coming weeks.

(Maria Mo) #16

Hi again and many thanks Josh,
Yes we looked for one on Friday already and again now, and we don’t seem to have a licence drop down - perhaps because our account is from 2011? This might be prompted now for new(er) accounts? Let me know if I should raise a ticket for this, just mentioning here, in case others have the same issue.

Best regards,

(Andy Lulham) #17

@MariaMO For UNOPS, it should be on this page: https://iatiregistry.org/publisher/edit/unops

The “License” dropdown ought to be the fifth field on the form.

In general, this page can be reached by:

  1. Logging into the Registry here
  2. Clicking My Publishers
  3. Clicking on the name of the relevant publisher in the table
  4. Clicking the :wrench: Manage button

I guess the important bit to note is that the license is set for the publisher, not for the individual dataset(s).

Hope that helps.

1 Like
(Maria Mo) #18

Thank you @andylolz Could not have done it without you. We are live now with the new licence category.

What we noticed was that after updating, our user description changed to “First published date: 29 August 2018” which is of course incorrect, as the original date was September 2011. If there is a way to correct, so let us know. Flagging this again just in case happens also to others.

1 Like
(Amy Silcock) #19

Thanks for flagging @MariaMO! I’ve raised the issue with our Registry supplier for them to look into. You/we can reset the date in the same page where you choose a license.

(Assem Kassim) #20

Hi Andy

The above points sound good and I don’t have an issue with them. I just need to somehow review the licence for our organisation.

(Amy Silcock) #21

Hi all, thank you for your contributions. We’ll review this thread in the coming week, as well as the responses from organisations we’ve contacted and the Registry supplier.

We’ll then confirm the list of licenses we’ll keep and how we’ll progress this work.

(Josh Stanley) #22

Hi all,

Derilinx have been working on the changes to the License field on the Registry. The following changes have been made:

  1. When a new publisher account is created, selecting a licence is mandatory.

  2. When an existing publisher amends their publisher details, and they have not previously selected a license, they must select a license before they are able to update.

  3. The following 4 options have been removed:

  • License not specified
  • Creative Commons Non-Commercial (Any)
  • Other (Non-Commercial)
  • Other (Not Open)

Derilinx are aiming to deploy these changes next week.

(Josh Stanley) #23

Hi all,

Please note that there has been a slight delay to the deployment, which is now due to take place today.

It is possible that the Registry will be down for a very short period (around 5 mins) while the site is rebuilt.

(Steven Flower) #24

Hi @JoshStanley thanks - just to check: did this go live?

@petyakangalova in terms of your steps proposed in February, where do you think we now are (nearly there, I think!) ?

(Petya Kangalova) #25

Hi @stevieflow. Changes did go live as notified by @JoshStanley 6 days ago.

In terms of the proposed steps, they have now all taken place and @JoshStanley is in the process of contacting all users directly via email this week.

(Steven Flower) #26

Fantastic news, thanks @petyakangalova, @Joshua_Powell for the diligence and delivery - and to all others putting time and effort into this

(Joshua Powell) #27

Thanks @stevieflow, I’ll happily take the credit for what @JoshStanley has delivered :wink:

(Steven Flower) #28

Too many Josh :slight_smile: