[od-discuss] Draft Response to Calgary

Wed Aug 28 20:09:17 UTC 2013

+1

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Baden Appleyard
<b.appleyard at ausgoal.gov.au> wrote:
> 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
>>
>