[od-discuss] Open Government License - Surrey 2.0
Aaron Wolf
wolftune at riseup.net
Sun Mar 15 03:23:14 UTC 2015
I should add that I think we should send this or something to this
effect regardless of whether we approve the license first, and I weakly
favor sending it prior to finalizing the approval.
On 03/14/2015 08:22 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 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
>>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list