[od-discuss] Open Government License - Surrey 2.0

Sun Mar 29 16:51:02 UTC 2015

+1

On 03/29/2015 03:26 AM, Andrew Stott wrote:
> I’m +1 on the licence too.
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*od-discuss [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Peter Murray-Rust
> *Sent:* 28 March 2015 14:55
> *To:* Herb Lainchbury
> *Cc:* od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> *Subject:* Re: [od-discuss] Open Government License - Surrey 2.0
> 
>  
> 
> +1 the licence (sic) conforms.
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Herb Lainchbury
> <herb at dynamic-solutions.com <mailto:herb at dynamic-solutions.com>> wrote:
> 
> This is a friendly reminder.  There is approximately one day left to
> vote on the Open Government License - Surrey v2.0.
> 
>  
> 
> I 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
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Herb
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Andrew Rens <andrewrens at gmail.com
> <mailto:andrewrens at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify how courts tend to interpret licences:
> 
> Peter wrote
> 
>          
> 
>     I agree. Perhaps I am too "scientific" but I believe the licence
>     should be a standalone object which ultimately has to be interpreted
>     in what its says. On occasion a court may ask what was the intention
>     of the legislator, but that's up to the courts to decide
> 
>  
> 
> and
>  
> 
>     I think a court could be concerned with the intentions of the
>     legislator not with the interpretation of the licensor (except to
>     moderate any redress).
> 
>  
> 
> Common law (UK, US, Australia, South Africa, India etc) courts set out
> to give effect to the intention of the licensor. The primary means for
> expression of this intention is the licence itself.
> 
> Peter is right that the licence must be considered first without
> introducing other sources for finding the intention of the licensor.
> However language being what it is a licence considered in this way may
> not always be clear on a particular issue. If that issue is in dispute
> then a court will have to look to surrounding circumstances to see
> whether these will resolve the ambiguity.
> 
> An important element in the surrounding circumstances is interpretative
> guidance provided by the drafter of the licence e.g. the Free Software
> Foundation giving a public explanation how the GPL should be understood.
> The drafter of the licence is not always or not usually the licensor.
> 
> The interpretation that a licensor places on a licence may also be an
> important surrounding circumstance however how weight it would have
> would depend on factors such as how long the licensor had claimed that
> interpretation, how much attention the licensor drew to it, and to what
> extent it was in conflict with other surrounding circumstances, not only
> the interpretation of the drafter but also community practises. An after
> the fact claim that "what I really meant was..." is not an important
> surrounding circumstance.
> 
> A court should never adopt an interpretation of a licence that is
> contrary to what it clearly says even surrounding circumstances suggest
> that interpretation but in the event of ambiguity it would do so.
> Contracts are also interpreted to implement intention but not the
> intention of one of the parties but the mutual intention of the parties
> - and the primary source for that must be the contract. This is one
> reason why common law open source lawyers care whether something is a
> bare licence or a contract. Continental lawyer insist that in all
> continental legal systems copyright licences ARE contracts.
> 
>  
> 
>      
> 
>     Part of the problem here is that the licensor is also the creator of
>     the licence.
> 
>  
> 
> Which would make their stated interpretation especially if it widely
> publicised from the outset more important BUT only in the event of
> ambiguity.
> 
>  
> 
> All that is well beyond the Surrey licence but I hope it will be useful
> to future discussions.
> 
> For purposes of deciding whether a licence conforms to the Open
> Definition the same procedure should be followed: consider the licence
> first without considering other interpretative sources. If there is
> ambiguity then see if the ambiguity can be resolved by reference to
> surrounding circumstances such as community practise and licence
> drafter's interpretation. If this process does not easily and clearly
> resolve the ambiguity and the ambiguity affects conformance then the
> licence is not unambiguously conformant and  therefore does not meet the
> Open Definition.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
>  
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 
>  
> 
> Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
> 
> 250.704.6154 <tel:250.704.6154>
> 
> http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>