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

Sat Mar 7 23:31:11 UTC 2015

+1

On 03/07/2015 03:10 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> I have to agree with Andrew on this.
> 
> To me OGL-Surrey is a straight forward Attribution license like the
> OGL-Canada and the OGL-UK that it is based on.
> 
> The license does not state anywhere at all that it is a share-alike license.
> 
> The advice that Paul was given is not reflected in the license as far as
> I can tell.  I see no reason to question the license because someone at
> the City may be interpreting it this way.  The same could be said about
> any license.
> 
> Mike said:
> "I propose in the comments on OGL Canada we add...
> 
> Note several Canadian provinces and municipalities have developed
> non-reusable licenses, each with differences from the federal OGL
> Canada. Some of these are open, as noted on a [dedicated
> page](/licenses/ogl-canada-subnational)."
> 
> I agree.  +1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com
> <mailto:penorman at mac.com>> wrote:
> 
>     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/
>         <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.
> 
>     _________________________________________________
>     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
>     <https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss>
>     Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/__mailman/options/od-discuss
>     <https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
> 250.704.6154
> http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>