[od-discuss] Open Government License - Surrey 2.0

Sat Mar 14 22:37:01 UTC 2015

To summarise so far as I understand it

We've asked them for changes. They've made enough changes to be conformant,
but we have reservations, not strictly because of the licence, but the
licensor's process and understanding.

Is that correct?

The problem we face is that any decision we make is effectively our case
law and binds us for the future to some extent. Logically it seems we
should accept the licence, but we have reservations. If a less confused
licensor created effectively the same licence we might feel it was
satisfactory.  ???

P.

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
wrote:

> -1
>
> Obviously per the text it is open. But I do not believe it is time[1] to
> approve when the license steward and only possible licensor is
> apparently confused about the license.
>
> I fully expect to be outvoted, and acknowledge that I should have
> replied to previous thread pre-call.
>
> Mike
>
> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSs6DcA6dFI
>
>
>
> On 03/14/2015 01:54 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> > I believe we've discussed the OGL Surrey v2.0 sufficiently to assess
> > conformance.
> >
> > In summary, we found the Open Government License - Surrey 1.0 to be
> > non-conformant and sent a formal notice to the City of Surrey making one
> > specific recommendation and two suggestions.  Within a few days they
> > released a new version of their license adopting our recommendation and
> > incorporating one of our two suggestions.  The suggestion that they
> > didn't incorporate, which we said was not strictly required for
> > conformance, is making their license re-usable by others.
> >
> > In our subsequent discussion there were comments about advice given
> > concerning the license and whether or not that advice should be
> > considered as part of the conformance process.  I believe we have
> > settled on the idea that we have to assess the license based on what is
> > written in it.
> >
> >
> > I now request that advisory council members indicate whether they agree
> > that the license conforms to section 2 of the open definition (v2.0)
> > found here:
> >
> > http://opendefinition.org/od/
> >
> >
> > Please use +1 for agree and -1 for disagree.
> >
> >
> > You can find a discussion here:
> > https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2015-February/001278.html
> >
> > and here:
> > https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2015-March/001293.html
> >
> >
> > You can find the text for the license here:
> >
> > OGL Surrey v2.0
> > http://data.surrey.ca/pages/open-government-licence-surrey
> >
> >
> > We will continue counting votes for two weeks from now or until
> > consensus is reached, which ever is first.
> >
> > Herb
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150314/e5475f8a/attachment-0003.html>