Bye.

Thank you very much for your time, and have a great day.

I’m going to note that. What I’m going to do now is writing up the final conclusions. We are not sure if we are going to publish the report externally. If we do, I’m happy to share it with you, also in advance, should I intend to quote you directly.

This resonates with our experience that the open definition really lives from the community pull. Unfortunately, there’s not a strong pull at the moment to make governments apply for the official approval, for example. It is definitely an important point to strengthen the community in this field, which doesn’t seem ...

Now I get it. This is interesting, because these are exactly the best practices we wish to identify. Being conscious of the time, another question I had was why did you apply for the open definition? Why did you apply for official approval? Hardly anyone does. It would be interesting ...

It’s slightly different as a process, because as far as I understand, you need to be aware of the terms of use that are applied, and they are not stored in metadata or something in your case, right?

It’s a bit similar to how Northern Ireland is dealing with this. What they do is they rely on uploads from other agencies, and as soon as the data is uploaded on their national portal, there’s only one license to apply.

It’s a two-stage process. Do you automatically then map the terms of use? You try to track terms of use through this endpoint, you said? Is that right?

OK.

Do you have any governance mechanisms for that in place, or is it regulated through the platforms?

I will go through this page later. I had another question: I know that some agencies publish data both on a national data portal, as well as on their own websites, which sometimes have their own terms of use. They might not be updated or anything so that the same ...

Where is it documented? Do you have an open data strategy or something, where you have the document?

The point you made about governments need to easily adopt...must be easy for them to adopt a license, you said that governments can currently choose between which license they want to apply?

This is a great tool. When I did my initial research, digging into, for example, the teaching materials that Creative Commons provided, I did not come across this very intuitive mechanism. It’s a great idea.

How does the transition clause work in practice. It would mean that, for example, if I would choose to create derivative work based on the data you publish on your data portal, I could just license and sublicense that as CC BY 4.0, and would be compliant, basically.

Yeah.

From other governments that they pick specifically standards, international licenses like CC BY 4.0 in Finland, because they say international compatibility is important to us, so we want to use this license. I was curious how this went about.

Another point that’s interesting is one-way transition clause. As far as I’m aware of, you are the only government that has this specific clause. Obviously, I don’t know all license text of bespoke licenses. Were there any issues in creating this one-way transition clause?

That’s interesting. I have the impression the more I talk with government officials, the more I see these concerns replicate. This really a phenomenon that occurs in a lot of governments.

Do you know anything about this process?

Maybe you can talk a bit about the delineation of the use cases you mentioned, and maybe also the choice of law when drafting the license. Were there any problems of drafting these points, for example? Were there discussions around use cases that you didn’t want to include, for example.

Maybe you can talk about the design goals a bit. I find that it makes a lot of sense, and the design goals are very clear. It seems that they are good guidelines to design a bespoke license, which is compatible, and addresses other concerns of license proliferation.

This is the background. Now I would like to talk with you about about Taiwan’s Open Government Data License, and the process you went through in order to create the license. Also I’d like to know how you implemented it. Maybe you can talk a bit about what was the ...

Our third question, which is more of a desired outcome than a question, is "What can we learn from that? Are there any best practices creating bespoke licenses, or using standard licenses? What can we learn to help governments making better use of a harmonized set of licenses, if you ...

The second question is once a national government, for example, creates this bespoke license, how does it work that different government agencies now use this license, and not create their own license again? That’s the second set of questions.

This is the larger background. Our research wants to understand what makes governments opt for creating bespoke license. What are the reasons why governments say, "OK, we don’t use a standard license like Creative Commons, but we want to create our own one"?

What we saw is that governments often create bespoke licenses. We find licenses that are, even for us, hard to interpret sometimes. We identified the creation of bespoke licenses as a larger problem, which is known for many years under the term ’license proliferation’. We wanted to understand what we ...

To give you background to our research, it all started with the Global Open Data Index, and our assessment of open licenses or license terms across more than 90 governments around the world.

Hi. It’s a pleasure to meet you. It’s been a while. We haven’t met in person, but I saw your keynote at TICTeC 2017, in Florence. That was very nice, very impressive how you talk about the open government initiative in Taiwan, and especially also the rate with which you ...

Yes. Loud and clear. Perfect.

Hello?