Template talk:OGL

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Update to National Archives link for the OGL[edit]

I have changed http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/ to http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/. This was in response to a request from a correspondent within the Ministry of Defence representing photos.mod.uk.

A brief review shows nothing of concern, however I would not be against this license being adapted to be able to point to previous versions of the OGL guidelines if anyone had reason to judge that this would make any difference to the nature of the copyright release on Commons.

The request email is not logged with OTRS, hopefully the updated guideline is self evidently a modest update, but I would be happy to give this an OTRS ticket for the record, if anyone feels it necessary. Thanks -- (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong image used[edit]

The template had used a graphic of the Royal Coat of Arms, which clearly is not permitted under the terms of the OGL. It should be replaced by an unofficial OGL graphic instead. The official one has Commons:Deletion_requests/File:OpenGovernmentLicence.svg already been deleted as unfree. LeadSongDog (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Different Versions of OGL[edit]

We're now up to version 3 of the license ([1]). Do we need separate templates for the different versions? Or should the current template be updated?--Ingafube (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

We have different versions of the template. It's the list of Commons:Copyright tags that needed updating, which it now is!--Ingafube (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Would moving this page to OGL1 be the right thing to do?--Ingafube (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of the OGL[edit]

The words "Note: Since 2010, almost all information owned by the UK Crown has been offered for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence by authority of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office" are clearly untrue. There is no basis for this assertion from the British Government. The British Government are clearly free to withhold works from the OGL, and indeed they do sometimes do so (such as, of course, e.g., MI5, MI6/SIS and GCHQ). -- Urquhartnite (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It says almost all, because agencies need to be specifically exempted from the Controller of HMSO's offer, and few are; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canoe Slalom - Kynan Maley.jpg for more info. —innotata 02:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am aware of recent issues around misinterpretation, especially as to which parts of '.gov' default to OGL. This is not an issue with the template, but with awareness that the licence is neither retrospective, nor does it blanket apply to all websites and archives run by government departments or agents. Review processes (such as DRs, OTRS and new image patrolling) need to provide assurance that uploaded media has an explicit OGL or that the publisher is covered by the generic policy to default to OGL (such as non-exempted Gov departments). If there was sufficient interest, then a page listing departments and agencies with their OGL defaults would be useful, and I have yet to see this anywhere obvious published by UK Gov. -- (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Information Provider"[edit]

The template uses the term "Information Provider" a few times. It appears this has been copied directly from the Licence terms. From the perspective of a reader, Information Provider in this case means wikimedia/wikipedia. It would be much clearer to readers if we amend the template to replace Information Provider with wikimedia / wikipedia.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The Information Provider is not Wikimedia, but the original source organization/publisher. -- (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)