On 2017-03-04 09:09 AM, James wrote: > As the LWG said, it's not a blanket acceptance of all OGL variants, but > if future licenses we come across are exactly the same(kdiff of text or > something as proof) except the city/entity name. We will have a strong > case that it is compatible with ODbL.
Yes, it would definitely help to show that the text of a new licence is only trivially different from an accepted one. We'd still need to run it past the LWG, though. Any new licence creates new obligations for the Foundation. Sometimes these new obligations are trivial, but they need to be recognized. > So if future cities are looking to change their license they can use > Ottawa license as an example so they are sure it's compatible Ottawa's licence isn't exactly a shining example. It was good they changed their licence from a grievously incompatible one after you contacted them about it. Annoyances with the Ottawa licence include: * it still includes the third party rights exemption that was brought over from the UK licence. I don't see any way that this will go away for existing data. * it doesn't have the statement on compatibility that the UK OGL licence includes. This would definitely ease adoption. cheers, Stewart _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
