New license request: O-UDA-1.0 [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[mlinksva]

1. License Name: Open Use of Data Agreement v1.0
2. Short identifier: O-UDA-1.0
3. License Author or steward: Microsoft
4. Comments: See background at https://github.com/microsoft/Open-Use-of-Data-Agreement#why-a-new-agreement including rationale and comparison with other open data licenses each of which is in the SPDX License List.

O-UDA-1.0 will be used for various datasets released on GitHub and elsewhere, examples forthcoming.
5. Standard License Header:
6. URL: https://github.com/microsoft/Open-Use-of-Data-Agreement/blob/v1.0/O-UDA-1.0.md
7. OSI Status: Not Submitted

[mlinksva]

cc @royaljust

I'm happy to make a PR with the correct XML formatting if/as appropriate.

[swinslow]

I'm generally in favor of adding. Looks to me like a straightforward open data license agreement, comparable to CDLA and other open data licenses on the list.

@mlinksva / @royaljust, do you have examples of where this license is in use in the wild? I see @mlinksva's comment that examples will be forthcoming; seeing some examples of real-world use would be helpful in considering it for addition to the license list.

[swinslow]

Hi @mlinksva and @royaljust, I wanted to circle back and see if you have any examples of this being used in the wild that you can share.

[mlinksva]

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/microsoft-research-open-data-project-evolving-our-standards-for-data-access-and-reproducible-research/ links to 3:

• https://msropendata.com/datasets/94d31431-0842-447c-b990-245761b7c5f2
• https://msropendata.com/datasets/d7859d92-56c9-46f2-b217-6adafaa1500f
• https://msropendata.com/datasets/85596452-0fe3-4335-bc00-ae83ee8ffcfd

I can't produce a stable URL for a list, but it seems tThere are 10 datasets as of right now on that site under O-UDA-1.0. I believe a bunch more are in process. I don't know of any non-Microsoft uses yet, will add when I hear of any if useful at the time.

[swinslow]

Thanks for this @mlinksva. I note also that this has also been submitted to Open Knowledge Foundation for approval under their Open Definition, and the preliminary comments there are favorable.

I'm in favor of adding, and will raise this on today's legal team call to see if there is consensus.

[swinslow]

We didn't have time to turn to this one during the legal team call on 2020-02-13, I'm hoping to do so during the next call on 2020-02-27.

[jlovejoy]

@mlinksva - looks like you use O-UDA within the license - but the short identifier would be O-UDA-1.0

would it make sense, for consistency, to use O-UDA-1.0 within the license too?

[jlovejoy]

but substantively , seems fine to add to me

[swinslow]

Discussed on legal team call 2020-02-27, agreed to add. Please feel free to weigh in on preferences for the identifier and the term used in the license text, per @jlovejoy's comment above.