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

[Wrate, David GCPE:EX]

Thanks for the feedback, Kent.

I'm the first one to say that the license adoption by the various cities/provinces has not been even. To that end, some of cities, Vancouver for example have brought issues of drafting and logic that we are working to correct with all license holders including ourselves. 

Those same changes will be incorporated into the template, which will be accompanied by detailed instructions on how the template is to used. 

I'm more than happy to talk about how we are progressing. As I'm sure you know, email is a medium not well suited to discussion.

Thanks,
David

> On Dec 4, 2013, at 11:45 PM, "Kent Mewhort" <kent at openissues.ca> wrote:
> 
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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