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

[Kent Mewhort]

On 13-12-04 07:53 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
> 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?
>
>
It's also a lot of licenses for license users to analyze, understand,
and determine compatibilities!  In any case, I think to declare a
template OD-compliant, the template would need to only allow very narrow
branding changes.  It would create problems to approve a template
allowing changes along the lines of, for example, the differences
between OGL2-Canada, OGL2-BC, and OGL2-Alberta (in my preliminary
opinion at this point, OGL2-C and OGL2-AB are OD-compliant, OGL2-BC is not).

Also, for OD 2.0, I wonder if we should think about baking-in some type
of anti-proliferation clause into the definition itself, rather than
merely having a category of non-reusable licenses.  License
proliferation is certainly a serious barrier to the openness of works,
as it prevents a lot of reuse and remixing -- making the works not
"open".  I'd have to think about it more before proposing concrete
wording, but I'd think that state level licenses or license templates
should probably be okay, with licenses aimed at any narrower group not
acceptable.

Kent