on how we can make sure that government do apply in the process of the Open Definition group?
Could the OK and broader open data communities evangelize doing so whenever a new license comes up? Are there communications or materials missing that would enable this?
As a case in point, @RouxRC are the people drafting the new French licence aware of the OD? I see a blog commenter claiming the new licence is OD conformant at https://www.regardscitoyens.org/disparition-de-la-licence-ouverte-etalab-et-la-dinsic-abandonnent-lopen-data/#comment-50517 but I haven’t looked to see whether they might be correct.
On the Singapore license:
You may grant a sub-licence of the datasets if this is necessary to enable users of your application and/or website (“your Sub-Licensees”), to use your application or access your website.
If your Sub-Licensees require additional rights, your application and/or website should direct your Sub-Licensees to obtain the appropriate licence at Data.gov.sg.
This Licence does not grant any rights to Downstream Sub-Licensees.
“Downstream Sub-Licensee” means any person who may require a licence in order to access the website or use the application of a Sub-Licensee.
“Sub-Licensee” means a person that is granted a sub-licence by you, where allowed under this Licence.
I’m not sure how this is intended to work, but it seems an odd mix of intended public licence and terms of service. Can third parties not get a direct license from the licensor without visiting the licensor’s site? If so that’s not one of the acceptable conditions listed in the OD.
Also, this seems superfluous (though maybe it is needed for Singaporean law?) but probably harmless:
Intellectual Property: All datasets are the intellectual property of the Agency.
You cannot enforce any intellectual property rights belonging to the Agency except with the prior written approval of the Agency. Rights of Third Parties: No one other than a party to this Licence shall have any right to enforce any of its terms.