[od-discuss] Open Government License - Surrey 2.0

Sun Mar 15 03:22:01 UTC 2015

I agree with Mike overall. This goes with my general emphasis of at
least making sure the conversation is opened to those relevant.

I don't think the license is a problem to be approved. I do think that
we might as well (i.e. best practice) contact the steward and say this:

"There was a concern about some confusion with the license. Someone
expressed an understanding that the data had to stay under this license.
However, the license says it cannot be used by anyone other than the
city. The combination of those two issues would make the data unusable
by others for any derivative work. However, we carefully reviewed the
license and found that the requirement to keep the same license is not
present. Therefore, there is no problem with the license. However, we
just wanted to bring this issue to your attention so you had a chance to
ask any questions or clarify any misunderstandings."

I think sending this to them before we do final approval simply makes sense.

Best,
Aaron

On 03/14/2015 06:31 PM, Mike Linksvayer 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
> 