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

[Mike Linksvayer]

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.

When? After OD 2.0 is done.

Why? Because we need to grapple with issues of mere conformance vs approval
as healthy for open ecosystem in OD 2.0 (or concurrent process changes),
and I think those things resolved, it'll be totally clear exactly what kind
of determination and resulting category and messaging we have around
licenses that aren't utterly unambiguously "open" or "closed", such as
these OGLs. And all are existing licenses; contrast with OGL UK 2.0, which
we actively provided input on during its development with an eye toward
approval.

If folks strongly *disagree* with this plan, I'll go ahead and add Open
Game License 1.0a to http://opendefinition.org/licenses/nonconformant/ and
start conformance vote for OGL AB and BC. Otherwise, I look forward to more
input on OD 2.0 (thanks Luis for getting it started, and Kent for
contributions so far!)

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20131104/c6cbe45f/attachment.html>