Mmm the comment on the review is quite explicit: yes there is an Open Licence, but no it is not openly licensed as it comes along with an added restriction that is incompatible with the Open Definition.
So please just do not trust blindly inputs from officials who are just trying to autoevaluate their work…
Seriously also 100% here in the end?
Well I guess OKF now does only take in account official truth from governments and doesn’t trust its community anymore?
In the index all last past years, the problem with the specific licence rights of french laws was taken into account.
It hasn’t changed at all since, and neither has the methodology on this part, nor the open definition.
So why would it suddenly this year become fully Open? Who knows?..
I really feel like OKF is betraying the OpenData advocacy community here… How can we plead for actual openness if you guys tell administrations “no, it’s all good there!”…
@tlacoyodefrijol could you please explain your decision and your review? We had provided sufficient evidence that this is not open licensed and all of sudden you change the result.
Open Knowledge is not listening to its community, it’s becoming a real issue…
We don’t consider that an “official truth” is what we’re going for here and of course, we want to listen to the community but the input that you are giving right now would have been helpful in an earlier stage. We based the license decision on the license description here.
Again, this was the whole point of the dialogue, to be able to get both parts and understand the reason why you don’t consider it open and be able to move the conversation forward. So if you could please explain the reason why the license is not compliant, since I wasn’t in early discussion about this in past Indexes, it would be really helpful.
PS: we’ve been advocating for the past two years for the removal of the problematic decree without success so far, having the index suddenly say the opposite would really not help
PPS: And I’d like to insist as explained in other threads we have similar problems with this year’s Index declaring France is fully open both on Draft Legislation (whereas bill’s contents, which are the first requirement, do not exist as anything else than pdf files and html webpages) and on Company Register (for which the available version is truncated of approximately 25% of registered companies)
Thank you for the explanation @RouxRC. Having all the context makes it easier to understand why these changes are so important. Also so we can make a case together to remove the decree.
I’m looking at the submission and indeed the comment is gone. This is something that we can take into account even if it is after the dialogue ended, given that it definitely changes what you can do with the data.
If you agree, what I can do is modify the entry based directly on the submission you made before, putting License back on NO. And adding the explanation, as well as the conversation here. Would that work?
Thanks again!
As expressed elsewhere, I believe we should still argue for taking into account the fact the french public Company Register published as data is unfortunately widely incomplete as they trashed lines of companies which asked for their contact information not to be shared (instead of simply emptying these fields…).
I believe this could easily be reflected by setting it as Not Downloadable as once and a simple comment on the matter.
