Now to finalise our wiki configuration and start working through the contract issues together – a perfect project for the upcoming NSW public holiday if not before!

Before anyone signs a contract, they should get legal advice – which I am not purporting to provide.

My understanding is that a ‘Dedicated Employee’ is someone who is listed in Part 1 of the Schedule – which the entity contracting to provide the project completes. So if such an organisation was chosen to provide a project, they would list the people who were to work on it in Part 1 of the Schedule (whether they were being paid or not) and these people would be the dedicated employees described in the body of the contract.

Hope this helps.

Regards

John

With the exception of the Taskforce chair, the Taskforce members are not being paid for their efforts.

Yeah, I only realised after a tweet from @piawaugh earlier today that Taskforce members are not being paid. This is an incredible ask of them and their employers and raises a whole other discussion around appropriate remuneration of people in government office (oh, that was raised last week wasn’t it!).

More props to the Government 2.0 Taskforce!

Legally, the money in the fund is not under the control of the Commonwealth.

Okay. Great. Therefore, Microsoft controls the fund.

The deed also makes it clear how Microsoft will respond to the Taskforce.

So, the Taskforce tells Microsoft what to do….

Taskforce controls Microsoft controls Fund => Taskforce controls Fund.

There are no issues here.

Well, its just an opinion, but I think that Microsoft obtaining IP through a government endorsed “competition” is an issue.

I’m looking forward to seeing the results of the wiki work that Andrew Perry describes.

So am I. Proposition 1: “All I/P shall vest with the Commonwealth and only the Commonwealth”

. With the exception of the Taskforce chair, the Taskforce members are not being paid for their efforts. Dr Gruen is reimbursed (modestly) by the Government via our Department (Finance and Deregulation). I have a small budget for Taskforce activities but it is not for competitions, prizes or projects.

. Legally, the money in the fund is not under the control of the Commonwealth. The deed makes this very clear. The deed also makes it clear how Microsoft will respond to the Taskforce. There are no issues here.

. I’m looking forward to seeing the results of the wiki work that Andrew Perry describes.

The Deed John published a link to seems to be going to some pains to ensure the fund remains under the control of Microsoft

Thanks Andrew,

I will have a look at the Deed.

But, even if the fund is under the ‘control’ of Microsoft, should we be satisfied?

This website certainly gives (me) the impression that the competition is being run by and for the benefit of the government and its constituents.

If Microsoft wishes to donate money for a competition then it should do so. unambiguously. On a Microsoft website.

Also, if the fund really is under the control of Microsoft then why does the Taskforce decide who wins the competitions and therefore receives portions of the fund?

It seems to me that the Commonwealth’s agent (i.e. the Taskforce) in deciding who receives the money is, as a result, exercising substantial control.

The Deed John published a link to seems to be going to some pains to ensure the fund remains under the control of Microsoft, perhaps to provide greater flexibility in the way that it is expended. It may be that Microsoft is helping the fund be spent in a more flexible way than if it was confined by some of the requirements applicable to a government fund.

It is good that this is all being discussed openly so that people can question and hopefully be informed of the reasons for the structure adopted.

So, is a possible translation of the above: “If the idea looks like it commercial potential, then Microsoft can claim IP ownership”

I doubt that is the intention, but it is a bit vague. I suspect it may be just to provide flexibility in relation to the work of the Taskforce, but it would be useful to understand the rationale.

Thankyou for the follow up on the process that was undertaken in developing the contract.

What’s more thank you for posting the Deed of Understanding, reading through that has helped to address certain concerns I had regarding the use of certain technologies (re IP rights), which are not explained in the Draft Contractual Agreement.

One thing I would like to see cleared up however is the status of Organisations such as Open Australia (not for profit, no employees, run on the smell of an oily rag). Given the clauses referencing “Dedicated Employees” and so on, how do they stand?

“Plans to crowd source an alternative contract version are interesting but, managing expectations, as this is a complex legal matter relying on the deed, etc, we might not be able to use the product(s) of such a plan. And, of course, with due deference to lawyers everywhere, a second legal opinion might be different from that of our lawyers and Microsoft’s but not necessarily preferred by us or Microsoft, nor (presumably) would it be covered by professional indemnity insurance.”

The purpose of the wiki we are developing is to collaborate with developers, data suppliers and application users to work through the issues that are of concern when engaging in development using data licensed under an Open license and identify and explain the risks that different participants are exposed to.

Ideally, this collaboration would then result in the development of contractual principles (or a document draft) that can be used as a resource by government departments/agencies when looking at sharing data under an open model.

Free Open Creative Law is an initiative of legal.consult and as such has professional indemnity insurance. Whether a particular document that is prepared through the collaboration is appropriate for a particular user’s circumstances will be a matter for that user to consider and obtain appropriate legal advice upon.

The collaboration may not result in an “agreement” document that will be used by the Taskforce, but hopefully the process can help flesh out the issues so that the different participants in open collaboration can understand why particular provisions are important.

Hopefully the Government 2.0 Taskforce will support that endeavour.