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

[Herb Lainchbury]

I would like to hear from others on this before we take another vote on the
Surrey license.  I think we have to take a license as it is written.

In my opinion, the extra condition that Paul mentions, that he must publish
derivatives using the same license, is not something that the license
itself says.

Further, the fact that it makes re-use impractical ( a developer is
unlikely to to re-publish using the City License ) says to me that this is
not the actual intention, and I certainly would not interpret it that way.

Based on the City of Surrey license v2.0 alone, I would feel free to use
the data from the City of Surrey and re-publish using another open
licence.  I would look at Kent's tool (
http://www.clipol.org/licences/CAN-GoC-ODL-2.0 ) and see that the Canada
license, which is almost identical to the Surrey license shows a number of
licenses that are compatible.

I would acknowledge that the city is one of my sources of data and would
attribute them in the manner they specified.

Herb








On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150305/5351e371/attachment-0003.html>