Loomio
Mon 16 May 2016

Human readable work in progress

CF
Cam Findlay Public Seen by 289

For those that aren't GitHub users, we have also provided a human readable version at: https://opendatanz.github.io/nzgoal-se/

The document has been split into it's four key sections plus a preamble about the revision process undertaken.

  1. Introduction
  2. Legal and policy context
  3. Policy Principles
  4. Review and release process

Note, this is not the final revision yet, just where we are up to, please read with this in mind.

CF

Cam Findlay Mon 16 May 2016

@donchristie thought I'd start a dedicated thread. The review and release text hasn't been posted yet (should be later in the week) the rest of the document sections have had revisions. :thumbsup:

DL

Dave Lane Tue 17 May 2016

(Minor typo in title, "transparent" :))

CF

Cam Findlay Tue 17 May 2016

Thanks @davelane 1 pull request away from a fix, I'll do that now

CF

Cam Findlay Tue 17 May 2016

fixed :thumbsup:

DC

Don Christie Tue 17 May 2016

Hi

Thanks Cam. This is really taking shape.

I may have missed something but I did think there was not a preferred
default licence. I do still see a few references to MIT as a default.

For example "The default MIT licensing does not apply where an exception
applies."

https://opendatanz.github.io/nzgoal-se/policy-principles/

The decision tree diagram in the last section seems to be cut in
half :-)

Cheers
Don

CF

Cam Findlay Tue 17 May 2016

Thanks for catching that. I'll update the reference to MIT default to fit the new balance approach first thing in the morning. :smiley:

DC

Don Christie Tue 17 May 2016

Got it. Thanks Cam.

I wonder if the wording around the decision point to chose the GPL could
more accurately reflect the discussions here? A government agency might
see strong advantages to the GPL in that their original investment will
always be available to them and other agencies and there is a much
stronger likelihood that future enhancements will also be made public
and therefore available. I know, for example, one syrong reason so many
agencies hesitate about letting suppliers have the IP of work developed
under contract is that they feel they and the tax payer will be ripped
off and that they will have to pay more than once for the same or
similar results. The MIT licence recreates this exact scary scenario,
the GPL guarantees the opposite result.

So maybe change:

"should that person be required to licence adoptions for reuse for
others"

to:

"are there benefits to government, the taxpayers and society in ensuring
future contributions and enhancements are available for re-use".

Happy to consider alternatives to this.

DL

Dave Lane Tue 17 May 2016

I agree with @donchristie that the current "decision point" text is a bit leading and doesn't indicate the implications sufficiently... Another fair way of couching it might be this: "If you intend to develop a future proprietary (closed) version of the software, and also want to enable your competitors to do the same, without any obligation to release the source code, select the MIT license. If, instead, you want all users of the software and any future derived versions to have equal access to the code in perpetuity, then select the GPL."

DC

Don Christie Tue 17 May 2016

By the way, an example of the fall out of unintended capture of formerly
"open" commons is being played out now in the arena of open academic
publishing.

https://medium.com/@PaulGowder/ssrn-has-been-captured-by-the-enemy-of-open-knowledge-b3e5bca6751d#.7ik1g33aq

The people whose research is published in SSRN did not intend their
works to be captured by Elsevier who embody the antithesis of open
research.

Cheers
Don

CF

Cam Findlay Wed 18 May 2016

Ok, the review and release narrative is available to look at through the above links. We are also thinking about the decision point question. Thanks again everyone for your input. :thumbsup: