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

[Paul Norman]

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/  ?
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.