[od-discuss] Provincial and Game OGLs; Open Definition 2.0

[Wrate, David GCPE:EX]

BC, in conjunction with AB, ON and the federal govt is charged with establishing the governance structure and adoption standards. What you have identified is one of the first issues we need to tackle. Our template approach will be much along the lines of Creative Commons: establish the common language, identify what can be changed to suit and what can be omitted.

To be fair, we have discovered a couple of drafting issues which we are in the process of correcting and communicating. 

David

On Dec 3, 2013, at 9:54 PM, "Paul Norman" <penorman at mac.com> wrote:

>> From: Wrate, David GCPE:EX [mailto:David.Wrate at gov.bc.ca]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 9:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [od-discuss] Provincial and Game OGLs; Open Definition 2.0
>> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> To my knowledge the OGL license has been adopted by:
>> 
>> Provinces:
>> British Columbia
>> Alberta
>> Ontario
>> 
>> Municipalities
>> Nanaimo
>> Vancouver
>> Surrey
>> Grande Prairie
>> Edmonton
>> Toronto
>> Ottawa
> 
> That is a lot of licenses to have to analyze and compare. I looked at Surrey's
> and aside from the different branding, the first line of attribution requirements
> uses a "Information Provider(s)" instead of "Information Provider". The OGL 2.0 
> (the original UK one) uses the same terms as Surrey. If we do declare a template 
> OD-compliant, how are we going to handle cities making changes like this?
>