[od-discuss] Fwd: Conformance - Open Government License - Surrey 1.0
Mike Linksvayer
ml at gondwanaland.com
Fri Mar 6 23:18:31 UTC 2015
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 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).
...and list Surrey and potentially others to the dedicated page.
Mike
On 03/05/2015 09:12 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list