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

[Aaron Wolf]

Good catch. Assuming you are right that they have a share-alike combined
with a discrimination on who can use the *license* (which is different
from discriminating about who can use the data), it does seem to be a
problem still. Given their response earlier, I suspect we can have them
rectify this.

On 03/02/2015 12:28 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> On 2/26/2015 6:47 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
>> I have placed a copy of the revised Open Government License - Surrey
>> (City of Surrey, BC, Canada) into our /licenses/inreview repository.
>>
>> As noted in this thread they have adopted our recommendation and one
>> of our two suggestions.
>>
>> I intend to call for a vote on this new version (2.0) in in a few days.
> Looking over my correspondence with Surrey, I believe the license still
> has a flaw which prevents conformance with 2.1.3.
> 
> There is general agreement that only information* by the City of Surrey
> can be licensed under the OGL - Surrey.
> 
> I was considering the case where I create a new work of information
> which is a mix of Surrey information and information I have created. The
> city told me that this would need to be licensed under the OGL - Surrey.
> The only problem is that not being the City of Surrey, I can't release
> information under their license.
> 
> This has in effect created a situation where you have a share-alike
> license which only one party can use.
> 
> 2.1.3 requires that work allow the distribution of derivatives under the
> same terms, which you can't do here. It also does not allow derivatives
> under different terms.
> 
> * information as defined in the license
> _______________________________________________
> 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