[od-discuss] Status of Vancouver and Surrey OGL varients

[Herb Lainchbury]

Now that we have released OD 2.0 I think we can proceed with looking at
these licences for conformance.

Because it's easiest to reference, I propose we start with the
OGL-Surrey-1.0.

Paul submitted this license as well as Vancouver some time ago and we
decided to wait until 2.0 was finished.  The licenses are similar but I
would suggest we work on them one at a time to make discussion simpler and
then the second discussion (Vancouver) will likely benefit from the first.

Open Government License - Surrey - version 1.0:
http://data.surrey.ca/pages/open-government-licence-surrey

The Surrey License is based on the OGL-BC-2.0 which is in turn based on
OGL-Canada-2.0.  The OGL-Canada-2.0 license is OD-conformant.

To make sure we follow our own process I have completed the questionnaire
for Surrey's license as follows.

Please have a look at the license and discuss as needed.  I am not calling
for a vote at this time.  I will do that once we have had chance to discuss.

Herb

=================================================================================================
OGL-Surrey-1.0

1.  State the rationale for the new license.

This is a license based upon the OGL-BC which is a jurisdiction specific
license.  The OGL-BC itself is based upon the OGL-Canada-2.0, which itself
is jurisdiction specific.  Because OGL-Canada is jurisdiction specific it
prevents reuse in it's current form.


2.  Explain whether the license may be used by any licensor, or is specific
to an organization/place/jurisdiction. We generally frown on the latter
(see proliferation below), only making politically expedient exceptions
(eg. the organization is a national government; and these are categorized
as “non-reusable”).

Like the licenses it is based on, the licence is jurisdiction specific and
contains some specific exceptions and definitions for this purpose.


3.  Compare and contrast to the most similar approved as OD-conformant
licenses.

The OGL-Surrey is a derivative of the OGL-Canada-2.0, an approved as
OD-conformant license.  The principle differences between this license and
the OGL-Canada are the references to the name of the jurisdiction,
references to jurisdiction specific legislation and the addition of an
exemption.  There are several other minor word and punctuation changes.


4.  Explain the benefit the new license brings over already approved
OD-conformant licenses which would outweigh the costs of license
proliferation? (Link is re software licenses, but the same principles and
costs apply.)

The license does not appear to add additional benefit beyond what the
OGL-Canada provides other than the fact that the OGL-Canada is not reusable
because of the jurisdiction specific language.  Ideally, a future version
of the OGL-Canada would be developed that would remove this barrier to
reuse, but at the present time sub-national jurisdictions wishing to base
their license on OGL-Canada have to make modifications.


5.  Identify which recommended conformant licenses the new license is
compatible with, and how – by alignment (permissions identical or a
superset of existing license, conditions identical or a subset) and/or
express permission to license the original and/or adaptations of the
licensed work under an existing license.

This license contains notice and attribution obligations so might be
compatible with CC-BY, ODC-By and ODC-ODbL but is definitely not compatible
with ODC-PDDL (i.e. by using data published under the Surrey license you
are not able to republish under PDDL).


6. Provide a link to any public drafting process (e.g., conducted on a
public communication forum of some sort; multiple drafts presented to that
forum) for the license.

To my knowledge there was no public drafting process for this license.




On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
wrote:

> On 07/22/2014 02:46 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> > Some time ago I sent the Vancouver and Surrey OGL licenses to the list
> > to see if they were Open Definition conformant or not and secondarily to
> > have the AC declare it as conformant or non-comformant.
> >
> > I'm wondering what the status of these is. Currently a similar vanity
> > license, the OGL-Canada-2.0 has been listed, but these ones haven't.
>
> IIRC we're waiting til Open Definition 2.0 is finished to reopen
> subnational Canadian licenses.
>
> When we do we need to decide how to address the many of them. In
> December 2013 there was a thread about possibility of treating them all
> as one templated license, with some indication that was the intention of
> the licenses, and some skepticism about that being a good idea and
> whether there was not already variation from a latent template among the
> licenses that existed at the time.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20141115/ce93fecd/attachment-0002.html>