[open-government] OGL-Canada proposal feedback from the Open Definition Advisory Council

[michael gurstein]

Thanks very much Mike and that does provide a very useful context...

I'm not seeing a direct link to our task of doing a review of the Open
Government Partnership commitments (Canada) but maybe others could see a
connection.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: mlinksva at gmail.com [mailto:mlinksva at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Linksvayer
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:54 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Open Government WG List; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Subject: Re: [open-government] OGL-Canada proposal feedback from the Open
Definition Advisory Council

I'm not sure what the OGP-C review is. Open Government Partnership?
Would love to know how it fits...

Re the OGL-C feedback, a bit more background:

PSI licenses created by governments seem to be a growing trend last few
years, usually with some problematic terms. OGL-UK is probably the highest
profile one, and perhaps most interesting from an Open Knowledge Definition
perspective, as it is clearly intended to be open, but nevertheless has
problematic terms that we hope to eventually see corrected, and not
propagated into licenses from other governments.

There's been discussion of these issues over the last couple years in a
number of places, but two quick links are
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2011-December/thread.html#84
(continues in next 3 months' archives) and section 7 of
http://epsiplatform.eu/content/topic-report-no-23-creative-commons-and-publi
c-sector-information-flexible-tools-support-psi
which covers OGL and related issues, with footnotes.

OGL-C (based on OGL-UK) feedback period was noted at
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/2012-December/002495.html
with substantial discussion at
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-December/thread.html#233

Link I sent is summary of feedback discussed last month, also submitted to
the OGL-C feedback site.

I hope above counts as a bit of context, but please tell me if it doesn't
make sense. :)

Mike

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:56 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Maybe others are more up to date but I wonder if you could provide a 
> bit of context on this and also how/if it might fit into the OGP-C 
> review. Is this an item that should be noted at all?
>
> Tks
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org
> [mailto:open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Mike 
> Linksvayer
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:44 PM
> To: Open Government WG List; od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: [open-government] OGL-Canada proposal feedback from the Open 
> Definition Advisory Council
>
> http://opendefinition.org/2013/01/31/ogl-canada-proposal-feedback/
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-government mailing list
> open-government at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-government
>