Loomio
Thu 21 Apr 2016

Consider removing section 22 & 23

CF
Cam Findlay Public Seen by 294

There was good debate and a lot of +1's for this in another thread. I'm raising a new thread here around this to close out this dialogue making use of the Loomio polling to capture the consensus around this.

CF

Cam Findlay started a proposal Thu 21 Apr 2016

Consider the removal of sections 22 and 23 ("stifling effect" of share-a-like) Closed Mon 25 Apr 2016

Please vote here to show you support for the consideration of removal of sections 22 and 23 from the NZGOAL-SE draft.

Agree - 7
Abstain - 7
Disagree - 7
Block - 7
7 people have voted (17%)
FT

Finlay Thompson
Agree
Thu 21 Apr 2016

These clauses are unnecessary.

BW

Brent Wood
Agree
Thu 21 Apr 2016

The so-called "permisssive" licences can be termed "stifling" as reuse & further development can be locked up in proprietary software & licences..
A more balanced description of the differences between GPL & BSD style licences should be provided.

DL

Dave Lane
Agree
Thu 21 Apr 2016

Those sections have an implicit "business perspective" rather than a "citizen perspective"... I think they're rather unnecessary.

RE

Rob Elshire
Agree
Thu 21 Apr 2016

These sections are not necessary.

TCY

T. Charles Yun
Agree
Thu 21 Apr 2016

DS

Danyl Strype
Agree
Sun 24 Apr 2016

DS

Danyl Strype
Agree
Sun 24 Apr 2016

I agree with the comments by Finlay, Brent, and Dave

CF

Cam Findlay
Agree
Mon 25 Apr 2016

To replace this section it would be good to explain (perhaps with case studies) some of the common misconceptions about share-a-like FOSS licenses like GPL.

CF

Cam Findlay Mon 25 Apr 2016

Further, I note that in a publication by US DHS they cite from interviews with Government ICT staff that often there was misunderstanding of GPL. See https://www.dhs.gov/publication/host-co

Note: keep in mind the copyright aspect of govt work in the US is very different from our own here in NZ, all Govt created code is under public domain. It's often globally released outside US jurisdiction through CC0 which is not supported in the NZ context. NZ has Crown copyright (bundle of rights) when a govt staffer produces something like code (hence requiring licensing guidance).

DS

Danyl Strype Mon 25 Apr 2016

@camfindlay1

To replace this section it would be good to explain (perhaps with case studies) some of the common misconceptions about share-a-like FOSS licenses like GPL.

At the risk of drifting off-topic, one of the ongoing activities of CreativeCommons Aotearoa/NZ has been to write up case studies of kiwis using CC licenses, thus building up an archive of such case studies on our website. When 'A Quiet Revolution (CC-BY)', the recent book about CC in Aotearoa, was being put together, much of the material for it was already available in the case studies archive.

There have been a number of kiwi free code releases over the years, both inside and outside government, as well as a plethora of examples of kiwis re-using and contributing back to existing open source projects. Would it be useful to write up a set of case studies on some of these as a record of practice? For reference both by people working on NZ GOAL-SE itself, and by developers and agency decision-makers trying to follow the advice in it once it's released. With CC ANZ, this was made possible in part by the funding of a part-time paid position for the Project Lead. Do you think it may be possible to get funding for a similar paid position to help collate case studies about kiwi free code releases and open source practice?

CF

Cam Findlay Wed 4 May 2016