> It didn't seem to stop every single municipal and provincial government wanting to tweak the wording a bit, which makes it a different licence every time.
The TB licence is fairly new. As far as I am aware only Ottawa has adopted it so far. Cheerio John On 3 Mar 2018 2:16 pm, "Stewart C. Russell" <scr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2018-03-03 11:59 AM, john whelan wrote: > > > > I assume you're not Canadian. > > Umm, Steve is one of the longest-standing Canadian OSM contributors. I > think he's the admin of talk-ca too … > > > All data released through > > their Open Data portal is under their licence which has been approved by > > the LWG. > > It was grudgingly approved by the LWG. It's hardly a model licence. It's > kind of a bad read on the UK licence, missing out key details that at > least make the v2+ British licence bearable. > > > They spent some three or four years consulting with many > > players including the provincial and municipal governments and the > > licence they came up with is one they feel comfortable with. It's not > > perfect but it is a good balance. > > … if you're a government. Notice you didn't list any data users in the > consulted parties. I remember responding to data consultations as a > user, and a conservative estimate of 0% of user concerns were included > in the final outcome. > > > Asking municipal and provincial governments to adopt a different licence > > means they need to do due diligence which means bringing in the lawyers > > to explain the implications. > > It didn't seem to stop every single municipal and provincial government > wanting to tweak the wording a bit, which makes it a different licence > every time. > > cheers, > Stewart > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
