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

[Herb Lainchbury]

2.1.3 reads: "The license must allow the creation of derivatives of the
licensed work and allow the distribution of such derivatives under the same
terms of the original licensed work."

I read that to mean, "the same terms" not "the same license".  So if I
distribute my work under a license that I create called MyGreatLicense that
has the same terms, then I am not in violation.  Those terms would include
things like giving the City credit (attribution) and giving downstream
users the same rights I was given.  Maybe that's not practically possible
either, but that's how I would interpret it to start out with.

If there was a term in the license that said I had to use the same license,
then we would have a true share-alike license as I understand it, and I too
would consider it unusable since I'm not the City.

The fact that the city told you that you would have to license under the
OGL - Surrey is indeed problematic.  I think that has to be an error.  If
that is what they intended I would expect to see that the terms of the
license itself.

Are you able to ask for clarification?

H



On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150302/b585bac0/attachment-0003.html>