[od-discuss] Fwd: Conformance - Open Government License - Surrey 1.0

Paul Norman penorman at mac.com
Sat Mar 7 01:12:47 UTC 2015

On 3/6/2015 3:18 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> I would like Surrey to clarify what they think the license means. If
> they, the only possible licensor, completely misunderstand the license,
> it seems the license is effectively as bad as a reusable license which
> is written so confusingly that all possible licensors completely
> misunderstand it. We wouldn't ever approve such a license.
> Separately, assuming we have a miscommunication or misunderstanding soon
> easily corrected, how do we represent the approved license on
> http://opendefinition.org/licenses/  ?
I would like someone from the OD AC to clarify this with Surrey - as 
then the person asking can choose better wording than myself and ask in 
a more official manner.

I should note that a new work it may not be possible to identify what 
parts are from Surrey data - or to do so is a very difficult task. If 
instead of just combining two datasets, you modify the Surrey one, 
dis-entangling the two to say this part is under the Surrey license and 
this other part is my work under CC BY is an extremely difficult problem.

More information about the od-discuss mailing list