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

Tue Nov 5 04:05:11 GMT 2013

I took a quick look, and all 3 say

"The Open Government Licence – X is based on version 2.0 of the Open
Government Licence – British Columbia, which was developed through public
consultation and collaborative efforts by the provincial and federal
government. The only substantive change to the licence is references to the
Province of British Columbia are replaced with the City of X."

where X is name of city. Is this definitely the case? I have not done a
diff to verify.

I don't think it makes sense to submit each formally right now, but many
thanks for highlighting the existence of these licenses. Definitely a use
case to consider for OD 2.0.

So nobody else has to say the unpleasant thing: these appear to be "vanity"
licenses. Every government body (why stop at municipality?) having a named
license can't be anything but painful for users. But, they are probably
open. Are vanity licenses really needed to goad each level of government to
release data under open terms?

Mike

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:

> I’ve been considering submitting a couple of licenses based on OGL BC for
> consideration as OD-conformant licenses. Should this wait until after it is
> considered?
>
>
>
> I suppose I should list them anyways, because it might be relevant for OGL
> BC that cities are having to modify it, even in small ways.
>
>
>
> -          Version 1.0 of Open Government Licence – Vancouver (
> http://vancouver.ca/your-government/open-data-catalogue.aspx, no direct
> link seems possible)
>
> -          Version 1.0 of Open Government License for City of Nanaimo
> Information (
> http://www.nanaimo.ca/EN/main/departments/106/DataCatalogue/Licence.html)
>
> -          Version 1.0 of the Open Government License for the City of
> Surrey (
> http://www.surrey.ca/files/Open_Government_License_-_City_of_Surrey_v1.pdf
> )
>
>
>
> *From:* od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:
> od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Linksvayer
> *Sent:* Monday, November 04, 2013 6:35 PM
> *To:* od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> *Subject:* [od-discuss] Provincial and Game OGLs; Open Definition 2.0
>
>
>
> Open Game License 1.0a; 2 weeks are up, 2 votes for approval, 1 against.
> This means it doesn't pass (if any AC member objects, 3/4ths of those
> voting must approve). But I don't have a solid reason for my own abstention
> -- it seems clear to me it *could* be used for open works, but am still
> fuzzy on whether it has been after 13 years. But given current process and
> OD, probably ought to have been approved, with provisos and in a
> not-recommended category.
>
>
>
> I said that I'd put Open Government License AB and BC up for conformance
> vote soon. At this point I also feel like they ought be approved, despite
> being problematic.
>
>
>
> Going against what I said about putting AB and BC up for approval soon,
> I'd now like to hold off, and also potentially revisit the Open Game
> License.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20131104/d9e5b12c/attachment-0001.htm>