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

Tue Nov 5 04:26:14 UTC 2013

I think we have to treat the AB and BC licenses separately, because they
are quite different.

I am fine with delaying the decision on BC until we get 2.0 done, because I
think it's going to make things clearer.  I'm not convinced that AB needs
to wait but I'm not opposed either.

By the way, the Ontario license was published as well.  As far as I know we
haven't been asked to approve it, but it's much like the BC license.
https://www.ontario.ca/government/open-government-licence-ontario

Herb

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 

Herb Lainchbury, CEO, Dynamic Solutions Inc.
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20131104/e41bd64f/attachment-0001.html>