Fix sec 4.2 of ODC_BY to make clear it is not ShareAlike #3
Comments
I suggest closing this as out of scope of the website. The license stewardship process needs more than just GitHub, and a comment here does not have the visibility. Is it even decided that ODC will be publishing an ODC BY 1.1 in the near future? |
@pnorman i agree that we should go through a proper review process. To be clear this was simply a clarification rather than a change with any substance but a fuller review than we had would still be useful. @marctjones i still think having the PR / diff is very useful. Maybe you could post the diff here for now. See also discussion in the PR #6 |
@rufuspollock Here is a diff of for my suggested patch for ODC BY.
|
@pnorman / @rufuspollock I agree. I would be inclined to say any textual change should go through a review process. Even small typos I would be inclined to send to the advisory council for review. You do not want to get into a situation some day where a pull request was put in to "fix" a typo for a lack of a comma, when in fact that comma changes the whole meaning of the sentence and was not a typo at all. It might seem silly and overdoing it when fixing obvious mistakes, but sometimes what is obviously "obvious" becomes debatable. |
@rufuspollock I am curious if you know what the review process would be or is this something the advisory council would have to set up. I know the GPLv3 process was a whole production. I do not believe FSF has a review process procedure lying around so has to construct it each time they update a license. Which considering the infrequency of that task, seems fair. |
@marctjones GPLv3 was massive change. This is simpler so i think it can go to the AC and get a quick look from a relevant legal expert. |
Can you explain the change in a non-technical way? Most people can't read diff files, and I can't read that particular diff formatting. |
Per conversation at https://discuss.okfn.org/t/is-odc-by-a-sharealike-licence/6417/10
Sec 4.2 of the ODC_BY license can be misleading and read to mean that ODC_BY is a ShareAlike license despite the clear intent that it be a Attribution license in the spirit of CC-BY. Fix the wording so that sec 4.2 only applies to the Database, and make it clear that 4.2(a) is a notice requirement not a licensing grant per the pull request #2
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: