Define list of acceptable licenses for DPG type "standard"

[lacabra]

The DPG standard is very clear in stating which licenses are approved for software, content and data here, namely:

Projects must demonstrate the use of an approved open license. For open source software, only OSI approved licenses are accepted. For open content the use of a Creative Commons license is required. While we encourage projects to use a license that allows for both derivatives and commercial reuse (CC-BY and CC-BY-SA), or dedicate content to the public domain (CC0); licenses that do not allow for commercial reuse (CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-NC-SA) are also accepted. For open data, an Open Data Commons approved license is required. See The full license list for reference.

Yet, there is no mention of what licenses are approved with the digital public good under consideration refers to a standard.

Proposed way forward:

• Identify an authoritative licensing body that we can rely on for choosing acceptable licenses for standards
• Amend the text of the standard to explicitly list acceptable licenses to the standard type and update this list accordingly.

Cc: @nathanbaleeta

[AlexLakatos]

Looking at one of the DPG standards already accepted, they have CC0-1.0 as a license. I think that makes sense, I would also expect Creative Commons licenses to be the accepted licenses, because when I boil it down Standards can be interpreted as Content.

[prajectory]

The DPG review team gets 1-2 applications every 3-6 months for an open standard to be a vetted DPG. Usually these can be classified under open content. But that leaves them open to the risk of someone forking the project/ making changes to the core of the project. A standard typically can't change and therefore in many cases the text of the standard itself is proprietary.

While currently, we are solving this case to case basis, it will have to be resolved as we see more 'standards' applying to be a DPG. We are moving this to expert consultation stage and talking to a few experts before we decide what our potential approach could be.

In the April standard council, we discussed following:

• [ ] Look into ISO/ IEEE certifications as potential options
• [ ] Consulting with Standard for Public Code which is a DPG

We will have updates on this thread when we have more details.

[Lucyeoh]

From Standard council discussion 05/16/22 - Standards are unique in that they are considered a "type of DPG" and "requirement for DPGs". Very difficult to determine if individual standards are SDG relevant. Many excellent bodies already reviewing and maintaining up to date list of standards. Consider removing them as a top-level DPG type and instead make them like OS licenses, a critical component of DPGs but not DPGs in and of themselves.

Logic:

• Prevents DPGA from duplicating the work of other standards conortium & bodies, reviewing & vetting individual standards
• Avoids fragmenting the ecosystem by presenting another "store" of standards
• Allows us to better represent and amplify the work of relevant open source standards communities & bodies

Next steps:

• Research to enhance indicator 8 with relevant specific standards bodies that we will require compliance with
• Update public documentation & form to remove DPG standard as a type or DPG that can be submitted for review
• Post blog post explaining process, conversation & logic

[AlexLakatos]

Does that mean you're going to also remove the Standard for Public Code (and other standards already on the list) from the DPG list?

[prajectory]

Hi @AlexLakatos when the annual reviews are conducted, we will have to update the registry as per these changes which would mean that standards would not be able to function as DPGs.

[prajectory]

All public documentation to be updated: https://github.com/DPGAlliance/publicgoods-submission/issues/3 @nathanbaleeta @nathanfletcher will execute this

Research: other standards to add to evolve indicator 8

Blog post: we will explain this change more in detail on the blog post

[prajectory]

https://github.com/DPGAlliance/DPG-Standard/issues/126 Please find this research completed here.

The only thing remaining is a blog post which we will publish once we make the change to indicator 8 to accommodate the list open stand orgs.

[prajectory]

closing this issue, please follow #126 for all updates on this front.