[Okfn-ca] OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision | Fwd: od-discuss Digest, Vol 33, Issue 10
Diane Mercier
diane.mercier at gmail.com
Fri Jul 12 14:46:43 UTC 2013
La licence du gouvernement du Canada (2.0) est classée "conforme" à la
définition du savoir libre.
|
OGL Canada 2.0 approved as conformant and added to
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: od-discuss Digest, Vol 33, Issue 10
Date : Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:29:31 +0100
De : od-discuss-request at lists.okfn.org
Répondre à : od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Pour : od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Send od-discuss mailing list submissions to
od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
od-discuss-request at lists.okfn.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
od-discuss-owner at lists.okfn.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of od-discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time (Mike Linksvayer)
2. Re: Getting the Open Game License accepted under the Open
Definition (Mike Linksvayer)
3. Re: OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time (Levene, Mark)
4. Re: OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time (Mike Linksvayer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:02:51 -0700
From: Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
Subject: Re: [od-discuss] OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time
To: Luis Villa <luis at lu.is>
Cc: "od-discuss at lists.okfn.org" <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>, "Levene,
Mark" <Mark.Levene at tbs-sct.gc.ca>
Message-ID:
<CAGSmzpTyZ_0CMVSZ3L-2Vnf19ODegVaerxBmTevwWe6+70M6Hg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
OGL Canada 2.0 approved as conformant and added to
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/
Will kick off formal approval-or-lack-thereof for Alberta and BC
together tomorrow.
Mike
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> +1s from Luis, Rufus, Andrew, Herb, and me. If nobody dissents, OGL
> Canada 2.0 will be officially approved in 2 days.
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
>> As with OGL-UK, +1 on compliance with the OD as currently drafted;
>> plus a note that we should adjust the OD to allow us to reject
>> misguided jurisdiction/government-specific licenses like this one in
>> the future, since they raise transaction costs without actually
>> benefiting either the licensor or licensee.
>>
>> Luis
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>>> I'm +1 on conformance. And great to see this in the repo -
>>> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/licenses/inreview/OGL-CA-2.0.md
>>> (makes it even easier to review!)
>>>
>>> Rufus
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 June 2013 22:15, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 from me too for conformance of OGL Canada 2.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27 Jun 2013, at 16:35, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 from me for conformance on OGL Canada v2.0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Mark.
>>>>>
>>>>> All note there's also a brief report on feedback at
>>>>> http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-consultation-report
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll start by saying despite outstanding quibbles, I'm +1 on conformance.
>>>>> We'll use the standard procedure at
>>>>> http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ ie it'll take at least two weeks
>>>>> for a final decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> AC and other list members, even if you agree the issues below aren't
>>>>> conformance blockers, further discussion of them is welcome, probably
>>>>> pertinent for future license developments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Levene, Mark <Mark.Levene at tbs-sct.gc.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we launched our new http://data.gc.ca portal last week and that?s
>>>>>> the version that can be found here:
>>>>>> http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada (available in French,
>>>>>> as well: http://data.gc.ca/fra/licence-du-gouvernement-ouvert-canada) .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We hope you find it conformant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: mlinksva at gmail.com [mailto:mlinksva at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mike
>>>>>> Linksvayer
>>>>>> Sent: June-26-13 4:30 PM
>>>>>> To: Kent Mewhort
>>>>>> Cc: Herb Lainchbury; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org; Levene, Mark
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [od-discuss] Comparison of UK, Canada and Alberta Licences
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OGL-Canada v2.0 is attached to
>>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000425.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wdiff of UK and Canada 2.0 at
>>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000466.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following up here because Kent's comments below the substantive ones. I
>>>>>> agree with Kent's comments, though I'm not sure any rise to the level of
>>>>>> non-conformance. I'd add that I'm not thrilled with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This licence does not grant you any right to use: ... Information
>>>>>> subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents,
>>>>>> trade-marks and official marks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As remarked previously regarding similar licenses, I wonder if this
>>>>>> doesn't make it rather ambiguous whether one has any right to use the
>>>>>> information at all, given that "other intellectual property rights" is
>>>>>> pretty broad. This was fixed in UK OGL 2.0 as I mentioned in trying to
>>>>>> summarizes those changes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * In exemptions, "Information subject to" removed from clause ending
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "other intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> design rights" (clarifying that these other rights aren't licensed
>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>
>>>>>> than no permission granted if other rights pertinent, which makes it
>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to tell when one has permission at all)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm guessing from Mark Levene's "the specific version that Canada will
>>>>>> be using when we launch our next-generation portal (coming very soon)" that
>>>>>> this is the final version, to be released very soon. If that's the case the
>>>>>> AC should vote on conformance, but would appreciation confirmation from Mark
>>>>>> (cc'd) as well as replies re issues raised by Kent (others, please add
>>>>>> yours).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some comments now that I'd had a chance to look at the difference
>>>>>> between the UK2.0 and CAN2.0:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scope of the licence:
>>>>>> -Use of any copyright and database right...indicates your acceptance
>>>>>> +Use any any Information...indicates your acceptance
>>>>>> Comment: Unless the intention is to make this a TOU rather than a
>>>>>> licence, this change makes it rather confusing for users. There should not
>>>>>> be an obligation for users to accept the terms if they're not using the data
>>>>>> in a way that implicates copyright of the licensor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attribution
>>>>>> -If the Information Provider does not provide a specific attribution
>>>>>> statement, or if you are using Information from several information
>>>>>> providers and multiple attributions are not practical..you may use the
>>>>>> following...:
>>>>>> +If the Information Provider does not provide a specific attribution
>>>>>> statement, or if you are using Information from several information
>>>>>> providers and multiple attributions are not practical..you must use the
>>>>>> following...:
>>>>>> Comment: The change from "may" to "must" is interesting. I actually
>>>>>> find the original "may" unclear, but possible more flexible. Does the "may"
>>>>>> indicate that you don't have to use the specified attribution statement, and
>>>>>> can attribute in your own fashion where necessary? On a strict reading of
>>>>>> the licence text, I'd say no, you cannot use your own. If you choose the
>>>>>> negative branch of the "may", you're back to the obligation in the first
>>>>>> paragraph that you must use the attribution statement specified by the
>>>>>> Information Provider. However, this is incongruent with the case where no
>>>>>> attribution statement is specified by the Information Provider. Thus, all
>>>>>> in all, this paragraph in the U.K. version is quite open to interpretation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Canadian version is clear. It's non-flexible attribution. You either
>>>>>> use an attribution statement specified by the Information Provider or, in
>>>>>> certain cases, the specific attribution statement in the licence itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exemption of "Information" Related to the my previous comments on the
>>>>>> licence scope, there's a set of three changes that are rather nuanced and
>>>>>> one might say even a bit sneaky:
>>>>>> -Change 1: Instead of "This licence does not cover", the exemption now
>>>>>> reads "This licence does not grant".
>>>>>> -Change 2: Instead of exempting "other intellectual property rights",
>>>>>> the licence does not grant "Information subject to other intellectual
>>>>>> property rights"
>>>>>> -Change 3: A change in the definition of "Information" that at first
>>>>>> seems circular: "information resources protected by copyright or other
>>>>>> information that is offered for use under the terms of this licence."
>>>>>> Comment: My immediate thought was that this definition tried to be more
>>>>>> expansive than copyright, only to pull away everything except copyright
>>>>>> again in the exemptions section -- ending back up at square one. However,
>>>>>> upon looking at it more closer, it's clear that the result of the three
>>>>>> changes is that the licence does not GRANT any right other than copyright,
>>>>>> but still attempts to impose all the OBLIGATIONS even where copyright does
>>>>>> not apply. I can't say I'm a big fan of this change....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kent
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13-06-19 09:32 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brilliant. I have to admit I hadn't thought of that when I was doing my
>>>>>> manual comparison of the Canadian and Alberta ones. I will definitely keep
>>>>>> that in mind for the future. Very handy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Kent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The diff algorithms that Clipol uses still need some work, but they do a
>>>>>> pretty decent job as between the UK 2.0, CAN 2.0 and Alberta 2.0 licenses:
>>>>>> http://www.clipol.org/tools/compare?family_tree=18
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13-06-19 12:39 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Andrew. Just wanted to double check as the filename is "OGLv2 0
>>>>>> draft 20130306.docx" which I thought might mean it was from March 6, 2013
>>>>>> and it may have evolved since then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Stott
>>>>>> <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The latest draft of UK OGL v2.0 was circulated by Jo Ellis on 6 June -
>>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-June/000424.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>> [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Herb Lainchbury
>>>>>> Sent: 18 June 2013 20:34
>>>>>> To: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>> Subject: [od-discuss] Comparison of UK, Canada and Alberta Licences
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have compared OGL Canada v2.0 (published) and OGL Alberta v2.0
>>>>>> (published) licenses as promised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Canada OGL v2.0 and Alberta v2.0 are very similar to each other with
>>>>>> minor wording changes and one extra bullet in the Alberta exemptions section
>>>>>> that indicates that it does not grant rights to use "Information or Records
>>>>>> that are not accessible under applicable laws;". It also includes a
>>>>>> corresponding reference to the definition of Records in the Definitions
>>>>>> section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am wondering if there is a more recent version of the OGL UK v2.0 that
>>>>>> I can use to compare with as the one I have dates back to March. Can
>>>>>> someone point me to a link or copy me? Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Herb Lainchbury
>>>>>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>>>>>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Herb Lainchbury
>>>>>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>>>>>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> od-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Herb Lainchbury
>>>>>> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>>>>>> www.dynamic-solutions.com
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> od-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> od-discuss mailing list
>>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> od-discuss mailing list
>>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Rufus Pollock
>>>
>>> Founder and Co-Director | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
>>>
>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>>
>>> Empowering through Open Knowledge
>>>
>>> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn | OKF on Facebook | Blog | Newsletter
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> od-discuss mailing list
>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> od-discuss mailing list
>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:36:56 -0700
From: Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
Subject: Re: [od-discuss] Getting the Open Game License accepted under
the Open Definition
To: Chris Sakkas <sanglorian at gmail.com>
Cc: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Message-ID:
<CAGSmzpT-Yp2r6b-7eU6bO6vd3g5bJZAjypsgaYqubPVS_-eYTQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Chris, thanks for the writeup.
If we did approve this, it'd probably go in the little used category.
One comment inline below, but I'd like discussion from others before
moving ahead. Maybe Rob Myers will appear. :)
Mike
ps Just noticed another old license,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_gaming#October_Open_Gaming_License
though I don't know if there's a copy of it online. Just a curiosity.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Chris Sakkas <sanglorian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I thought I'd take another shot at this now that I've seen the License
> Approval Process on the Open Definition site.
>
> The Open Game License: http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
>
> Rationale: The licence was created to put the rules to the then newly
> released third edition of the tabletop roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons
> under a licence that would both allow third party publishers to create
> supplementary works and protect the 'product identity' of the
> thirty-year-old Dungeons & Dragons brand.
>
> Specific to an Organization/Place/Jurisdiction: No. It was designed for use
> with text but has been used with images, and it has been used by hundreds of
> publishers and individuals.
>
> Compare and contrast:
>
> Probably the most useful comparison is between the OGL and the OD-compliant
> GNU Free Documentation License. The GNU FDL has optional sections that make
> the licence non-free. Mike Linksvayer suggested that Product Identity in the
> Open Game License plays the same role: when exercised, Product Identity
> renders a use non-free/libre/open, but when Product Identity is not
> exercised, it is free/libre/open.
I said this with a lot of uncertainty. :)
> Benefits versus licence proliferation:
>
> Ideally, the licence would be deprecated and all the works under the licence
> would be ported over to CC BY-SA. Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag
> and the OGL remains the licence of choice for many tabletop game publishers.
>
> Compatibility:
>
> I doubt the Open Game License is compatible with the Creative Commons
> licences with Attribution clauses. The Open Game License requires a very
> specific and limited form of attribution.
>
> Public drafting process:
>
> None. Done in house by Wizards of the Coast.
>
> Previous discussion on this list:
>
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-December/000227.html
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-December/000228.html
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-May/000149.html
>
> ---
>
> Thanks folks, it would be good to see a final decision on this one way or
> the other. I think the Open Game License is not only currently relevant and
> of historical importance, it's also a case study that let's us test and
> explore where the boundaries of the Open Definition are.
>
> It will also have practical consequences. I currently index the >100 OGL
> licensed works as free/libre/open on the FOSsil Bank
> (http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/licence:ogl/), but would switch to indexing
> them as proprietary if that's the way this list goes.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> Chris Sakkas
> Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki and the Living Libre blog and Twitter feed.
>
>
> On 4 December 2012 09:53, Chris Sakkas <sanglorian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Thanks for following this up!
>>
>> As far as I understand, Product Identity is not sticky in the same way
>> that the OGL is. If you use content under the OGL (work 1), you have to
>> re-license it under the OGL (for work 2). However, you do not need to
>> declare the Product Identity of work 1 in work 2. That means if someone
>> creates work 3 from work 2, they are not bound by the Product Identity of
>> work 1. (If they are creating work 3 from work 1 too, then they would be).
>>
>> Here's an example:
>>
>> In Dungeons & Dragons there's a monster, the beholder (a multi-eyed orb
>> monster). It is Product Identity. If you were creating a work from the
>> System Reference Document, you couldn't use the term 'beholder'. However, if
>> you were creating a work (work 3) from a work (work 2) that was itself
>> created from the System Reference Document (work 1), you could. This would
>> allow you to create a NoX RPG (NoX had a similar but different monster
>> called a beholder).
>>
>> At least, that's my interpretation. The alternative would be that every
>> time you created a derivative of a work, you would need to identify the
>> Product Identity of every work that that work was a derivative of.
>>
>> Therefore, it shouldn't be too hard to find (or create) works without
>> Product Identity, even if they are derived from works with Product Identity.
>>
>> But I am not a lawyer, so take all this with a grain of salt.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris Sakkas
>> Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki and the Living Libre blog and Twitter feed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 December 2012 09:15, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Months ago Chris Sakkas wrote to this list re the subject
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-May/000149.html and I
>>> didn't see any followup.
>>>
>>> I suggest http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html *might* be Open
>>> Knowledge Definition compliant, with the proviso that no "Product
>>> Identity" is defined (akin to FDL with no invariant sections etc). But
>>> I'm not at all certain.
>>>
>>> This is an old license (2000). It has been discussed thoroughly
>>> elsewhere, though I don't have a specific reference. Does anyone? Does
>>> anyone know of important uses free of "Product Identity"?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:13:46 -0400
From: "Levene, Mark" <Mark.Levene at tbs-sct.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [od-discuss] OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time
To: "od-discuss at lists.okfn.org" <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
Message-ID: <mailman.40688.1373578171.3066.od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This is great. Thanks.
One further request: could the definition of a non-reusable licence be added to http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ ? I've been getting some questions as to what that category means. Mike has defined it earlier as: "where other licenses only for direct use by a particular entity (effectively, government, as I doubt we'd even consider such a license from a smaller entity) and its sub-units will be added."
--Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: mlinksva at gmail.com [mailto:mlinksva at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mike Linksvayer
Sent: July-11-13 11:03 AM
To: Luis Villa
Cc: Rufus Pollock; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org; Levene, Mark
Subject: Re: [od-discuss] OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time
OGL Canada 2.0 approved as conformant and added to
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/
Will kick off formal approval-or-lack-thereof for Alberta and BC
together tomorrow.
Mike
[snip]
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:29:24 -0700
From: Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
Subject: Re: [od-discuss] OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time
To: "Levene, Mark" <Mark.Levene at tbs-sct.gc.ca>
Cc: "od-discuss at lists.okfn.org" <od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
Message-ID:
<CAGSmzpRUDz48rKiKTz3i++JEnker_4Hpps4zLDjZT=KdZEMguA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I added under the heading:
Open licenses only for direct use by a particular entity, eg a
government (it is unlikely the Advisory Council would consider
non-reusable licenses from smaller entities).
Mike
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Levene, Mark
<Mark.Levene at tbs-sct.gc.ca> wrote:
> This is great. Thanks.
>
> One further request: could the definition of a non-reusable licence be added to http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ ? I've been getting some questions as to what that category means. Mike has defined it earlier as: "where other licenses only for direct use by a particular entity (effectively, government, as I doubt we'd even consider such a license from a smaller entity) and its sub-units will be added."
>
> --Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mlinksva at gmail.com [mailto:mlinksva at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mike Linksvayer
> Sent: July-11-13 11:03 AM
> To: Luis Villa
> Cc: Rufus Pollock; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org; Levene, Mark
> Subject: Re: [od-discuss] OGL Canada 2.0 conformance decision time
>
> OGL Canada 2.0 approved as conformant and added to
> http://opendefinition.org/licenses/
>
> Will kick off formal approval-or-lack-thereof for Alberta and BC
> together tomorrow.
>
> Mike
>
> [snip]
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
od-discuss mailing list
od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/optionss/od-discuss
End of od-discuss Digest, Vol 33, Issue 10
******************************************
--- Liaison par | Curation by :
Dre Diane Mercier
Ph.D. Sciences de l'information
Ambassadrice de l'Open Knowledge Foundation - Groupe local au Canada
Profil : http://okfn.org/members/dianemercier
Blogue : http://ca.okfn.org
Liste de discussion : http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-ca
Meetup : http://www.meetup.com/OpenKnowledgeFoundation/Montreal-CA
Twitter : @okfnca
Chargée de projet sur les données ouvertes de la Ville de Montréal
Blogue : http://dianemercier.com
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/dianemercier
Skype : dianemercier
Zotero : http://www.zotero.org/dmercier
« Pas de données ouvertes, sans logiciel libre ni formats ouverts»
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-ca/attachments/20130712/bd757139/attachment.html>
More information about the okfn-ca
mailing list