[od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant?

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> On 13 February 2012 21:56, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Herb Lainchbury
>> <herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Folks.  How do we move forward on this?   Is there a board that needs to
>>> vote?
>
> It's the Advisory Panel of the Open Definition, see:
> <http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/>

Although "this" might be two things:
- approval (or not) of UK OGL
- updating of the OD itself, which has been done before (1.0 to 1.1)
but I don't know exactly how or when

>> I don't know about final approval, which I imagine might be the OKFN
>> board, but there is an Open Definition advisory group that I think
>> I've cc'd here and obviously should be consulted (but it may be
>> everyone is on both lists) -- for context see this subject in
>> Dec/Jan/Feb od-discuss archives
>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/
>
> Yes, that's right and see above. I'd like to suggest we start (a
> regular) OD phone con / skype which can be a focal point for final
> decisions on these types of issues. If this sounds good I, or my
> colleague Daniel (in cc), can boot a doodle poll for a suitable date.

Great

>> Also it makes sense to have a feedback period, reaching out to, at the
>> least I'd think
>>
>> - Stewards/communities of neighboring definitions (OSI, FSF, Debian,
>> Freedom Defined)
>> - Stewards/communities of OD-compliant licenses
>> - Some OKF sub-communities/projects/lists that would be interested
>>
>> Rufus did mention in
>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-January/000100.html
>> having some kind of license review meeting, which I think could
>> conclude in need for definition clarification, or just start with
>> that. I haven't seen a followup yet.
>
> See above. I think this is definitely required (perhaps aim for quarterly).
>
>>> Mike, I think that putting it in git is a great idea.  I wonder if a
>>> markdown version of the license might be a better way to capture content
>>
>> s/license/definition/ :)
>
> I think this is a great idea. BTW, i've just done a big overhaul of:
>
> <http://licenses.opendefinition.org/>

Looks very nice. I like the button at the very bottom of the page.

> There's an associated repo here:
>
> <https://github.com/okfn/licenses>
>
> We could perhaps start a 'texts/' directory for the actual texts of
> licenses (when we first booted the licenses 'repo' and service 2y ago
> we'd wanted to be cautious about duplicating but a versionable repo of
> open licenses would be really useful.

Yes, that would be nice. Definitions too. :)

>>> diffs?  That way the styles are independent of the content and it's easy to
>>> see what's changed.
>>
>> I assumed it was being kept in HTML in WordPress, but if a markdown
>> version is available/being used with a markdown plugin to publish,
>> clearly that would be better.
>
> We definitely want plain text / markdown. That's actually how we keep
> the Open Data Commons licenses in source form.

Great.