[od-discuss] Draft Response to Calgary

[Andrew Stott]

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_2gWr14EW
Ctc/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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130625/dc51cb7b/attachment-0001.html>