[od-discuss] Draft Response to Calgary

[Herb Lainchbury]

Yes, I was thinking that too.  I'll put it in the repo.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>wrote:

> Wow that's pretty amazing set of revocation terms - thanks for posting the
> full version. Definitely makes this non-conformant!
>
> BTW: @Herb: could we get this license (markdown version) into the repo.
> This would be a first experiment with our new licenses storage process<https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition#licenses> (feedback
> will be useful!).
>
> Rufus
>
>
> On 25 June 2013 13:12, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca> wrote:
>
>>  On 13-06-25 11:28 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
>>
>> On 25 June 2013 08:08, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca> <kent at openissues.ca> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Herb,
>>
>> Excellent & thorough response.  The only other thing I would mention is the
>> licensor's right to unilaterally terminate the licence, which is definitely
>> not open: "Furthermore, The City may, in its sole discretion, cancel or
>> suspend your access to the Data without notice and for any reason".
>>
>>  To be clear is that *revocation* of the existing license or right to
>> terminate access to the data (from hereon).
>>
>>  Good point, that's an important distinction.  I should have posted the
>> full clause:
>>
>> *Furthermore, The City may, in its sole discretion, cancel or suspend
>> your access to the Data without notice and for any reason, including
>> anything which The City, in its sole discretion, believes is a breach of
>> these Terms of Use or is otherwise unlawful or harmful to others. In the
>> event of cancellation or suspension, you will no longer be authorized to
>> use or reproduce this Data, and The City may use any means possible to
>> enforce its decision. Such cancellation or suspension will not affect any
>> person who has received the datasets from you and who is otherwise in
>> compliance with these Terms of Use. *
>>
>> The clause therefore grants the City to the discretion to revoke (1)
>> access; (2) the right to use; and (3) the right to reproduce. I think it's
>> fair to say this effectively amounts to a full revocation of the rights
>> granted under the licence (but may keep some of the obligations in place).
>>
>> Kent
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *
>
> Rufus Pollock
>
> Founder and Co-Director | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock<https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>
>
> The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>
>
> Empowering through Open Knowledge
> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | OKF on Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>|
> Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |  Newsletter<http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>
>
> *
>



-- 
Herb Lainchbury
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
www.dynamic-solutions.com
http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130625/1a2c0b5b/attachment-0001.html>