[od-discuss] OGL Surrey 1.0 - decision time

Fri Jan 9 11:25:08 UTC 2015

-1 also for the same reasons.

Sometimes it’s possible to avoid this problem by allowing relicensing under a fully conformant licence. This is often a bit daft, as you might as well release under the alternate licence anyway, but there are sometimes reasons (good and bad) such as (1) fulfilling internal requirements of a specific body or organisation; (2) ego stroking; and (3) allowing relicensing under a less clear, but more commonly understood, licence.

-          Andrew

From: od-discuss [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: 09 January 2015 09:12
To: Andrew Stott
Cc: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Subject: Re: [od-discuss] OGL Surrey 1.0 - decision time

-1 from me.
I have re-read the discussion - which is closely and carefully argued - and don't dissent from any of it.
Is there any general lesson we can learn here? The features seem to be extension of licences (perhaps forced by legislative / administrative requirements) and also restriction of downstream use. If, for example, every City in Canada proposed something similar, can we point to re-usable principles as in case-law?

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com<mailto:andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com>> wrote:
-1 for the same reason as Mike.

From: od-discuss [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org<mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org>] On Behalf Of Mike Linksvayer
Sent: 08 January 2015 18:15
To: Herb Lainchbury
Cc: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org<mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
Subject: Re: [od-discuss] OGL Surrey 1.0 - decision time

-1

https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-November/001155.html for why

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com<mailto:herb at dynamic-solutions.com>> wrote:
I believe we've discussed the OGL Surrey v1.0 sufficiently to assess conformance.

I now request that advisory council members indicate whether they agree that the license conforms to section 2 of the open definition (v2.0) found here:

http://opendefinition.org/od/

Please use +1 for agree and -1 for disagree.

You can find a discussion here:
https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-November/001133.html

You can find the text for the license here:

OGL Surrey v1.0
http://data.surrey.ca/pages/open-government-licence-surrey

We will continue counting votes for two weeks from now or until consensus is reached, which ever is first.

--

Herb

_______________________________________________
od-discuss mailing list
od-discuss at lists.okfn.org<mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss

_______________________________________________
od-discuss mailing list
od-discuss at lists.okfn.org<mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss

--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150109/6057b42b/attachment-0003.html>