[od-discuss] Draft Response to Calgary

Wed Aug 28 02:08:09 UTC 2013

Herb,

This looks good.  Thanks for drafting.

I am also intrigued by the "you will be fully responsible for the
consequences" clause. I'm not quite sure which area of law it is referring
to (copyright, tort, something else).  In any event, that may not be the
case.  For example,  in a suit for negligent misstatement, liability may
extend back to the City, and accordingly, the licensee may not be "*fully
responsible*". Agree with your recommendation to remove.

Kind regards,
Baden Appleyard

On 28 August 2013 11:35, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:

> As per the attached thread, we were planning to send a response letter to
> Calgary after we had a chance to review the Canada OGL and then the Alberta
> OGL license reviews.
>
> In light of the fact that the review of the Alberta OGL has been postponed
> to a time when both BC and Alberta can join us in a discussion, we decided
> at the most recent board meeting on Aug 8, 2013 that we would go ahead with
> sending the formal response letter to Calgary so as not to cause undue
> delay.  At that meeting I agreed to send the letter out again to refresh
> our collective memory and give another chance for feedback before sending
> to Calgary.
>
> Here is a link to the document:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KroB-vEuwFdKF6bUj23FgcPaRgroZtu_2gWr14EWCtc/edit?usp=sharing
>
> If there are no objections I plan to send this out to Calgary on behalf of
> the Open Definition Advisory Council one week from today.
>
> Thank you,
> Herb Lainchbury
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
> Date: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [od-discuss] Draft Response to Calgary
> To: Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
> Cc: Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com>, Kent Mewhort <
> kent at openissues.ca>, "od-discuss at lists.okfn.org" <
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>
>
> That looks good to me. I'd propose sending/posting after we make
> determination on Canada 2.0 conformance, ie in 2 weeks.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Herb Lainchbury <
> herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
>
>> I have updated the response to add the suggestions from Andrew and Kent.
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KroB-vEuwFdKF6bUj23FgcPaRgroZtu_2gWr14EWCtc/edit
>>
>> You can see the revisions by selecting "File" | "Show Revision History"
>> and then clicking the "Show Less Detailed Revisions" at the bottom right of
>> the screen.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Herb Lainchbury <
>> herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
>>
>>> re (2): my preference would be to recommend that they adopt a license
>>> that has already been found conformant such as CC-BY, PDDL or the OGL -
>>> Canada v2.0.  (of course this presumes that we've made this decision before
>>> I send this note).
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Stott <
>>> andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Herb****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this draft.  I am basically +1 with it subject to:****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> (1) adding the point Kent makes about revocation – where the provision
>>>> is horrible because the full text shows that it essentially allows Calgary
>>>> to revoke an individual user’s licence in an arbitrary and discriminatory
>>>> fashion.  While this might be an extreme case, it is not beyond the bounds
>>>> of possibility if someone created an application that an influential
>>>> politician did not like.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> (2) a clearer sign-posting to what would be an acceptable standard
>>>> licence.  Should we only recommend CC-BY, or should we point them to the
>>>> possibility of adopting the Canadian OGL as an alternative?  ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Regards****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Andrew****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *From:* od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:
>>>> od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On Behalf Of *Herb Lainchbury
>>>> *Sent:* 25 June 2013 00:43
>>>> *To:* od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>> *Subject:* [od-discuss] Draft Response to Calgary****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Here is a draft response to Calgary as promised.  It's in Google doc
>>>> format here: ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KroB-vEuwFdKF6bUj23FgcPaRgroZtu_2gWr14EWCtc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Please either +1 or send me suggestions.  If/once approved I will send
>>>> it to Calgary directly and post to the
>>>> http://opendefinition.org/update/ blog.****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> H****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Herb Lainchbury****
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Herb Lainchbury
>>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Herb Lainchbury
>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Herb
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130828/59903f65/attachment-0001.html>