That's a good question, and it raises a number of issues.
The starting position of some countries--the United States is the best known for us--is that copyright doesn't attach to these documents, full stop. I think many of the examples we heard about unleashing the economic value--which I thought were terrific--originated in the United States, where they started from that position.
You see the origins of crown copyright in the Commonwealth countries, and we've seen two approaches there. One is to just abolish it altogether. As I mentioned, New Zealand is an example of a country moving in that direction. The other is to overlay the licence. It's not either/or; you could establish a licence and later decide to eliminate crown copyright.
The attractiveness at this stage of moving forward with a licence solution--and I think it's precisely why we've seen Australia and the U.K. move toward this--is that it doesn't require legislative change. We're simply dealing with a policy change in how government chooses to deal with its own documents. We retain copyright, but we establish a licence that will permit uses, reuses, and the like without the need to ask for prior permission. Perhaps just attribution would be required. The official document will still be the government's document, but we want to give publishers the opportunity to republish, in some instances, and add economic value, as we've heard about, and allow the public to use these various works without fear of receiving the kind of cease and desist letter I mentioned The Globe and Mail got in connection with the takedown notification when they dared to publish a chapter from the Auditor General's report.