[od-discuss] Getting the Open Game License accepted under the Open Definition

Mon Aug 12 06:52:08 UTC 2013

I think it's fair to say that the Open Knowledge Foundation network is
already addressing quite a few areas outside of public sector and research;
and even outside cultural content. Open hardware and design is good
examples here where we already have a working group and interest; things
like product information www.product-open-data.com may be future areas we
work in too, and we definitely have interested people in the network for it
today. These will involve very different communities and issues.

Personally I'd like to see the Open Definition fit for all these open
knowledge areas; for some this might involve more effort, as open may be a
wholly new concept in the domain, and open licences and how they are used
will need to be worked out with care and engagement with domain experts. I
already use the Open Definition as a key piece of explanation when talking
about open in these new areas, which is incredibly helpful, but rarely so
far have got into a detailed enough conversation to tackle licence
compliance.

i'd like to figure out how we can ensure that the Definition is useful for
these new areas where open is at a pioneering stage, that licence
evaluation comes along perhaps later, and that the AC has the expertise (or
access to the expertise) needed to do this work.

Best regards,

Laura

-- 

Dr Laura James

Co-Director  | skype: laura.james  |  @LaurieJ <https://twitter.com/LaurieJ>

The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>

Empowering through Open Knowledge
http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN>  |  OKF on
Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |
Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |  Newsletter<http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>

On 12 August 2013 05:28, Chris Sakkas <sanglorian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for following this up, Mike. I appreciate your advocacy.
>
> I see a larger role for the OKFN in the future in engaging with free
> culture and not focusing on data, the public sector and research. I think
> the Public Domain Review is a good start, and shows that there's an
> appetite for this sort of thing.
>
> The Open Game License is certainly a consequential and popular cultural
> licence. Thousands of products have been released under it; its structure
> and scope are distinctive; and its origin is (as far as I know) unique in
> that it is a non-software public copyright licence created by a company.
>
> However, I also recognise the feeling that the License is outside of OD
> expertise and perhaps the OKFN's current scope. I might push again if the
> License is used for the upcoming Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition or if the
> OKFN expands further into free culture.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> *Chris Sakkas
> **Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki <http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/> and the Living
> Libre blog <http://www.livinglibre.com> and Twitter feed<https://twitter.com/#%21/living_libre>
> .*
>
>
> On 10 August 2013 09:41, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
>
>> As reflected in
>>
>> http://opendefinition.org/2013/08/08/notes-from-open-definition-call-august-2013/
>> we briefly discussed the Open Game License, though not its substance.
>> The feeling among those present was it may be out of scope for this
>> group, and is outside of this group's expertise: unless someone wants
>> strongly to convince otherwise and does so, we'll not officially
>> evaluate the Open Game License's conformance or lack thereof.
>>
>> It'd be easy to convince me otherwise, but I'm probably an outlier
>> here in terms of interest in licenses that have near zero public
>> sector or research relevance; I don't want to push this through
>> without other AC members' scrutiny.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
>

*

**

**

*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130812/b35336f2/attachment-0001.html>