[od-discuss] Open Government License - Surrey 2.0

[Herb Lainchbury]

I am +1 on this license.






On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
wrote:

> That's a reasonable summary, with these caveats:
> * I have reservations, not sure if anyone else does.
> * My reservations would go away if license steward/only possible
> licensor explained that they are not confused.
> * The precedent I want us to set is of careful deliberation -- we should
> never approve a license til it is time -- and to me the license
> steward/only possible licensor being confused is a red flag that it is
> not yet time. I may well be overreacting.
>
> Mike
>
> On 03/14/2015 03:37 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> > 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
> > <mailto: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 <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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter Murray-Rust
> > Reader in Molecular Informatics
> > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> > University of Cambridge
> > CB2 1EW, UK
> > +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150314/09d3675c/attachment-0003.html>