list of license could be published publicly on the web site somewhere as they are considered (i.e. in the pipeline)
non-conformant licenses - when initiated by 3rd parties, we should send a courteous letter letting them know it’s being considered, and then a follow up with the outcome
some formal statement that if a third party submits a license, we have some regular approach for contacting the author / license entity
we should consider licenses even if they are not explicitly requested
would be interesting to have a general sense of the scope of quantity of licenses overall
we could simply list as many as we are aware of and focus on prioritizing rather than excluding
being able to make general statements about
2.2.6 - it makes sense to have a look at improving the parsability of this clause
1.3 - if we’re not going to be firm about the open format then it calls into question why the clause is here at all.
Refer to OSI and FSF for definition of open software
We could make explicit to translators that it is ok to use Open Knowledge Definition instead of Open Definition in translations where it makes sense in their language
Discussion about a new badge being developed for sites that either publish or consume open data as part of their operation. This would not replace the current open data badge, but would rather provide an opportunity site wide for both consumers and producers. Users would register to use the badge and usage metrics would be collected. Based on a trust-network model. Should be released in the next week or two.
