{"id":"OpenDataLicenceAgreement","title":"Open Data Licence Agreement","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://web.archive.org/web/2020/https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/00873.html","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"correct","summary":"The licence is the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying edition of the Canadian Open Government Licence: the freedoms list, the attribution condition, the exemptions, the non-endorsement section and the no-warranty section are word for word those of OGL-Canada-2.0, with the attribution statement and the Information Provider changed. The record models it correctly and nothing was changed. It is, together with NCGL 2.0, the best modelled government record in the review group.","findings":[{"rubric":1,"severity":"info","field":"cc:legalcode","description":"cc:legalcode and dct:source point at the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying page, which refuses automated requests with HTTP 403 but serves the page to a browser. The text for this review was read from an Internet Archive snapshot of the same URL. No SPDX entry exists for this licence.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:target","description":"dcmitype:Dataset only. The licence is issued for the open data of the registry of lobbyists, so the narrow asset type fits, even though the parent OGL-Canada-2.0 record also carries creative works and software.","action":"none"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:permission","description":"The permissions follow the freedoms list: \"Copy, modify, publish, translate, adapt, distribute or otherwise use the Information in any medium, mode or format for any lawful purpose.\" Commercial use is express in the grant, \"including for commercial purposes\". cc:DerivativeWorks and dalicc:ModifiedWorks are both present, which is what the freedoms list grants and what the parent record lacked before the review.","action":"none"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"dalicc:promote is the only prohibition and it is supported twice: the Exemptions list excludes \"the names, crests, logos, or other official symbols of the Information Provider\" and trade marks, and the Non-endorsement section forbids any use suggesting official status or endorsement. The record does not carry the unsupported cc:ShareAlike and dalicc:addStatement prohibitions that the three Open Government Licence records carry, which is correct.","action":"none"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:duty","description":"cc:Attribution and cc:Notice hang on odrl:distribute, odrl:modify and odrl:derive, which matches the condition \"Acknowledge the source of the Information by including any attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a link to this licence\", with the default statement \"Contains information licensed under the Open Data Licence Agreement, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying.\"","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer holds both paragraphs of the No Warranty section verbatim, the second being the liability exclusion, exactly as the parent record does. The Exemptions list and the Governing Law section are not carried.","action":"none"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"dalicc:worldwide and dalicc:perpetual match the grant, \"a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence\". The governing law is Ontario and the applicable laws of Canada, for which the model has no field.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"record","description":"As for the parent: the exemptions list, the automatic end of the rights on breach and the reservation of official symbols have no terms. Proposed terms: dalicc:exemptedMaterial, dalicc:terminationOnBreach.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check reports no conflict.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The record is an institutional edition of OGL-Canada-2.0 and, after the corrections applied to the parent, the two models agree on the permissions and the duties. What still differs is the asset collection, this record carrying only dcmitype:Dataset, and the two unsupported prohibitions of the parent, which are proposed for removal there. Both records should end up identical apart from the asset types, because the documents are identical apart from the name of the Information Provider.","action":"none"}],"family":"Government licenses (United Kingdom, Canada)","port_of":"OpenGovernmentLicenceCanada","variant_kind":"edition","notes":"The review group input listed the text as unavailable because the site answers automated requests with 403. It was read from an Internet Archive snapshot, so the verdict is correct rather than text-unavailable. Nothing in this review is legal advice."}