From sandklef at chalmers.se Thu Dec 8 21:47:04 2011 From: sandklef at chalmers.se (Henrik Sandklef) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:47:04 +0100 Subject: [od-discuss] Broken link on http://opendefinition.org/ Message-ID: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> Hello There seems to be a missing link on the front page of od. Open Software Service Definition (OSSD) links to http://opendefinition.org/ossd which is not a valid page* I suspect it should link to this instead: http://opendefinition.org/software-service/ regards, henrik sandklef *) "This is somewhat embarrassing, isn?t it?" From lucy.chambers at okfn.org Fri Dec 9 09:15:01 2011 From: lucy.chambers at okfn.org (Lucy Chambers) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 09:15:01 +0000 Subject: [od-discuss] Broken link on http://opendefinition.org/ In-Reply-To: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> References: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> Message-ID: Dear Henrik, Thank you very much for pointing this out. @Mark - do you have sufficient access to change this? Lucy On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Henrik Sandklef wrote: > Hello > > There seems to be a missing link on the front page of od. > > Open Software Service Definition (OSSD) links to > http://opendefinition.org/ossd which is not a valid page* > > I suspect it should link to this instead: > http://opendefinition.org/software-service/ > > regards, henrik sandklef > > *) "This is somewhat embarrassing, isn?t it?" > > _______________________________________________ > od-discuss mailing list > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > -- Lucy Chambers Community Coordinator Open Knowledge Foundation http://okfn.org/ Skype: lucyfediachambers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rufus.pollock at okfn.org Fri Dec 9 10:07:13 2011 From: rufus.pollock at okfn.org (Rufus Pollock) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:07:13 +0000 Subject: [od-discuss] Broken link on http://opendefinition.org/ In-Reply-To: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> References: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> Message-ID: On 8 December 2011 21:47, Henrik Sandklef wrote: > Hello > > ?There seems to be a missing link on the front page of od. > > ?Open Software Service Definition (OSSD) links to > http://opendefinition.org/ossd which is not a valid page* It certainly is the case that: (note trailing slash) does redirect. What's odd is that normally wordpress should add a trailing slash to urls but it is not for that URL. In any case have fixed link on the frontpage and we will look into the redirection. Rufus > ?I suspect it should link to this instead: > http://opendefinition.org/software-service/ > > regards, henrik sandklef > > *) "This is somewhat embarrassing, isn?t it?" > > _______________________________________________ > od-discuss mailing list > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss -- Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ From mark at countryman.co.za Fri Dec 9 11:29:46 2011 From: mark at countryman.co.za (mark herringer) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:29:46 +0000 Subject: [od-discuss] Broken link on http://opendefinition.org/ In-Reply-To: References: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> Message-ID: link works and looks like this.. Open Software Service Definition (OSSD) On 9 December 2011 10:07, Rufus Pollock wrote: > On 8 December 2011 21:47, Henrik Sandklef wrote: > > Hello > > > > There seems to be a missing link on the front page of od. > > > > Open Software Service Definition (OSSD) links to > > http://opendefinition.org/ossd which is not a valid page* > > It certainly is the case that: > (note trailing slash) > does redirect. > > What's odd is that normally wordpress should add a trailing slash to > urls but it is not for that URL. In any case have fixed link on the > frontpage and we will look into the redirection. > > Rufus > > > I suspect it should link to this instead: > > http://opendefinition.org/software-service/ > > > > regards, henrik sandklef > > > > *) "This is somewhat embarrassing, isn?t it?" > > > > _______________________________________________ > > od-discuss mailing list > > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > > > > -- > Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation > Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age > http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > od-discuss mailing list > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From herb at dynamic-solutions.com Tue Dec 13 00:46:01 2011 From: herb at dynamic-solutions.com (Herb Lainchbury) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:46:01 -0800 Subject: [od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant? In-Reply-To: References: <56A1DF416D6C48B8A30A72071D087C7F@HPLAPTOP>

Message-ID: I am wondering if there is any will to apply opendefinition.org conformance test to new licenses (including those mentioned in this thread), thereby listing those licenses on the respective conformant or non-conformant pages? As it stands there are a number of new licenses emerging and no clear way to tell if the licenses are conformant. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I think it's important for licenses to be tested by the community. Is anyone able to advise on this? Thank you, Herb On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > Hi Rufus and all, > > I think the 3 clauses you've called out are quite problematic. IANAL > but "ensure" sounds burdensome, "official" is unclear, and "mislead" > is ripe for abuse. As the OKD draws much from the OSD, which itself is > based on the DFSG, I take license to call out the > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#tentacles_of_evil test. I > think analogously, if an oppressive government comes to power, the OGL > provides built-in excuses for suppression of uses of "open" > information it finds disagreeable. Maybe this concern is over the top, > just putting it out there. > > The clauses, even if OKD compliant, are also problematic for > compatibility with other licenses, though I don't understand why > sharealike licenses in particular -- eg can one practically adapt an > OGL work and release under CC-BY or ODC-BY? I know there's an > expressed intention to permit that, but downstream users would need to > be more careful than they'd need to be with a CC-BY or ODC-BY work > that doesn't incorporate OGL material. In any case it would be good to > document the OKD conformance approval process and in said > documentation encourage thinking about issues beyond narrow > conformance such as proliferation and compatibility. > http://opensource.org/approval may be a good place to start from. > > Mike > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Rufus Pollock > wrote: > > To follow up, I've re-read the license and the Definition [1] one more > > time and perhaps I'm over-reading here. > > > > [1]: > > > > While the additional "integrity" style clauses may be an issue for > > reasons I've outlined I don't think, strictly, they violate any of the > > Open Definition principles (the issue would be around (3) and (6) -- > > reuse and integrity). As such the OGL would be compliant. > > > > If we assume the OGL is compliant it is worth thinking a bit further > > about what would happen if we had a proliferation of these form of > > minor, but substantive, additional requirements on users and reusers > > and whether a modification to the Definition is needed to handle these > > and ensure compatibility is maintained (this would be a separate > > thread, though). > > > > Rufus > > > > On 19 October 2011 10:54, Rufus Pollock wrote: > >> Hi Andrew, > >> > >> In fact, unfortunately, in my opinion is that it is *not* compliant > >> [1]. Specifically these additional restriction clauses are > >> problematic: > >> > >> > >> * ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests > >> any official status or that the Information Provider endorses you or > >> your use of the Information; > >> > >> * ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the > >> Information or its source; > >> > >> * ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data > >> Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC > >> Directive) Regulations 2003. > >> > >> > >> The first of these, may be ok (it's a pseudo-integrity clause) though > >> I worry about interaction with share-alike (and worry about how easy > >> to interpret it is). > >> > >> The second of these is definitely problematic as it is additional > >> requirement that would probably be problematic with share-alike or > >> similar. I also think is a clause that creates a lot of uncertainty > >> (I'm a newspaper and use government data to write a news story. Can > >> the government accues me or misleading or misrepresenting the source > >> and hence void my license). It also seems one could achieve the intent > >> of this clause through other means -- simple notification, clear > >> statement about the mistake etc. > >> > >> The last item adds a completely new requirement which again leads to > >> problematic interaction with other licenses. Also, I wonder why this > >> needs to be in the license. Surely breaching that act is an offence in > >> itself -- in which case why add to the license? > >> > >> Rufus > >> > >> [1]: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2011-March/000032.html > >> > >> On 18 October 2011 16:27, Andrew Stott > wrote: > >>> Herb > >>> > >>> As I recall the general view was that the UK OGL was compliant, but > no-one > >>> had actually taken through the process to get it listed. > >>> > >>> Andrew Stott > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org > >>> [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Herb > Lainchbury > >>> Sent: 18 October 2011 16:15 > >>> To: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > >>> Subject: [od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant? > >>> > >>> Hi All, > >>> I have looked through the archives for an answer to this question but > >>> haven't seen anything. > >>> I am interested in the UK Open Government > >>> License > http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, and > >>> I think it conforms but it doesn't appear to be listed anywhere on > >>> the opendefinition.org site. > >>> Does anyone know if this has been discussed before? Am I missing > something? > >>> Thanks. > >>> -- > >>> Herb Lainchbury > >>> Founder, OpenDataBC (Canada) > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> od-discuss mailing list > >>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > >>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation > >> Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age > >> http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation > > Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age > > http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > od-discuss mailing list > > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > > > > > > -- > https://creativecommons.net/ml > > _______________________________________________ > od-discuss mailing list > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > -- Herb Lainchbury Dynamic Solutions Inc. www.dynamic-solutions.com http://twitter.com/herblainchbury -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rufus.pollock at okfn.org Tue Dec 13 10:34:14 2011 From: rufus.pollock at okfn.org (Rufus Pollock) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:34:14 +0000 Subject: [od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant? In-Reply-To: References: <56A1DF416D6C48B8A30A72071D087C7F@HPLAPTOP>

Message-ID: On 13 December 2011 00:46, Herb Lainchbury wrote: > I am wondering if there is any will to apply opendefinition.org conformance > test to new licenses (including those mentioned in this thread), thereby > listing those licenses on the respective conformant or non-conformant pages? Yes there is: > As it stands there are a number of new licenses emerging and no clear way to > tell if the licenses are conformant. Agreed. We have considered most recent licenses submitted though I know there are more out there. Regarding, for example, the OGL debate is still open on this important issue (and may possibly lead to some clarification of the definition) > Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I think it's important for licenses to be > tested by the community. Agreed again. Rufus > Is anyone able to advise on this? > > Thank you, > Herb > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Mike Linksvayer > wrote: >> >> Hi Rufus and all, >> >> I think the 3 clauses you've called out are quite problematic. IANAL >> but "ensure" sounds burdensome, "official" is unclear, and "mislead" >> is ripe for abuse. As the OKD draws much from the OSD, which itself is >> based on the DFSG, I take license to call out the >> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#tentacles_of_evil test. I >> think analogously, if an oppressive government comes to power, the OGL >> provides built-in excuses for suppression of uses of "open" >> information it finds disagreeable. Maybe this concern is over the top, >> just putting it out there. >> >> The clauses, even if OKD compliant, are also problematic for >> compatibility with other licenses, though I don't understand why >> sharealike licenses in particular -- eg can one practically adapt an >> OGL work and release under CC-BY or ODC-BY? I know there's an >> expressed intention to permit that, but downstream users would need to >> be more careful than they'd need to be with a CC-BY or ODC-BY work >> that doesn't incorporate OGL material. In any case it would be good to >> document the OKD conformance approval process and in said >> documentation encourage thinking about issues beyond narrow >> conformance such as proliferation and compatibility. >> http://opensource.org/approval may be a good place to start from. >> >> Mike >> >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Rufus Pollock >> wrote: >> > To follow up, I've re-read the license and the Definition [1] one more >> > time and perhaps I'm over-reading here. >> > >> > [1]: >> > >> > While the additional "integrity" style clauses may be an issue for >> > reasons I've outlined I don't think, strictly, they violate any of the >> > Open Definition principles (the issue would be around (3) and (6) -- >> > reuse and integrity). As such the OGL would be compliant. >> > >> > If we assume the OGL is compliant it is worth thinking a bit further >> > about what would happen if we had a proliferation of these form of >> > minor, but substantive, additional requirements on users and reusers >> > and whether a modification to the Definition is needed to handle these >> > and ensure compatibility is maintained (this would be a separate >> > thread, though). >> > >> > Rufus >> > >> > On 19 October 2011 10:54, Rufus Pollock wrote: >> >> Hi Andrew, >> >> >> >> In fact, unfortunately, in my opinion is that it is *not* compliant >> >> [1]. Specifically these additional restriction clauses are >> >> problematic: >> >> >> >> >> >> * ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests >> >> any official status or that the Information Provider endorses you or >> >> your use of the Information; >> >> >> >> * ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the >> >> Information or its source; >> >> >> >> * ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data >> >> Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC >> >> Directive) Regulations 2003. >> >> >> >> >> >> The first of these, may be ok (it's a pseudo-integrity clause) though >> >> I worry about interaction with share-alike (and worry about how easy >> >> to interpret it is). >> >> >> >> The second of these is definitely problematic as it is additional >> >> requirement that would probably be problematic with share-alike or >> >> similar. I also think is a clause that creates a lot of uncertainty >> >> (I'm a newspaper and use government data to write a news story. Can >> >> the government accues me or misleading or misrepresenting the source >> >> and hence void my license). It also seems one could achieve the intent >> >> of this clause through other means -- simple notification, clear >> >> statement about the mistake etc. >> >> >> >> The last item adds a completely new requirement which again leads to >> >> problematic interaction with other licenses. Also, I wonder why this >> >> needs to be in the license. Surely breaching that act is an offence in >> >> itself -- in which case why add to the license? >> >> >> >> Rufus >> >> >> >> [1]: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2011-March/000032.html >> >> >> >> On 18 October 2011 16:27, Andrew Stott >> >> wrote: >> >>> Herb >> >>> >> >>> As I recall?the general view was that the UK OGL was compliant, but >> >>> no-one >> >>> had actually taken through the process to get it listed. >> >>> >> >>> Andrew Stott >> >>> ________________________________ >> >>> From: od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org >> >>> [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Herb >> >>> Lainchbury >> >>> Sent: 18 October 2011 16:15 >> >>> To: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org >> >>> Subject: [od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant? >> >>> >> >>> Hi All, >> >>> I have looked through the archives for an answer to this question but >> >>> haven't seen anything. >> >>> I am interested in the?UK?Open Government >> >>> >> >>> License?http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, and >> >>> I think it conforms but it doesn't appear to be listed anywhere on >> >>> the?opendefinition.org?site. >> >>> Does anyone know if this has been discussed before? ?Am I missing >> >>> something? >> >>> Thanks. >> >>> -- >> >>> Herb Lainchbury >> >>> Founder, OpenDataBC (Canada) >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> od-discuss mailing list >> >>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org >> >>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation >> >> Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age >> >> http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation >> > Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age >> > http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > od-discuss mailing list >> > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org >> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> https://creativecommons.net/ml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> od-discuss mailing list >> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > > > > > -- > Herb Lainchbury > Dynamic Solutions Inc. > www.dynamic-solutions.com > http://twitter.com/herblainchbury -- Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ From rufus.pollock at okfn.org Tue Dec 13 10:36:46 2011 From: rufus.pollock at okfn.org (Rufus Pollock) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:36:46 +0000 Subject: [od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant? In-Reply-To: References: <56A1DF416D6C48B8A30A72071D087C7F@HPLAPTOP>

Message-ID: To return to this very useful thread (apologies for dropping it at my end!) On 19 October 2011 18:56, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > Hi Rufus and all, > > I think the 3 clauses you've called out are quite problematic. IANAL > but "ensure" sounds burdensome, "official" is unclear, and "mislead" > is ripe for abuse. As the OKD draws much from the OSD, which itself is > based on the DFSG, I take license to call out the > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#tentacles_of_evil test. I > think analogously, if an oppressive government comes to power, the OGL > provides built-in excuses for suppression of uses of "open" > information it finds disagreeable. Maybe this concern is over the top, > just putting it out there. Excellent points Mike. So on this basis we'd be leaning towards non-conformance for the OGL (and any similar licenses). If so I'm wondering if we want to add some clarificatory language to the Definition around the provision of additional restrictions. > The clauses, even if OKD compliant, are also problematic for > compatibility with other licenses, though I don't understand why > sharealike licenses in particular -- eg can one practically adapt an > OGL work and release under CC-BY or ODC-BY? I know there's an > expressed intention to permit that, but downstream users would need to > be more careful than they'd need to be with a CC-BY or ODC-BY work > that doesn't incorporate OGL material. In any case it would be good to > document the OKD conformance approval process and in said > documentation encourage thinking about issues beyond narrow > conformance such as proliferation and compatibility. > http://opensource.org/approval may be a good place to start from. Ditto. Do you have suggestions for specific mods to: Rufus From ml at creativecommons.org Tue Dec 13 17:33:13 2011 From: ml at creativecommons.org (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:33:13 -0800 Subject: [od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant? In-Reply-To: References: <56A1DF416D6C48B8A30A72071D087C7F@HPLAPTOP>

Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote: > On 19 October 2011 18:56, Mike Linksvayer wrote: >> I think the 3 clauses you've called out are quite problematic. IANAL >> but "ensure" sounds burdensome, "official" is unclear, and "mislead" >> is ripe for abuse. As the OKD draws much from the OSD, which itself is >> based on the DFSG, I take license to call out the >> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#tentacles_of_evil test. I >> think analogously, if an oppressive government comes to power, the OGL >> provides built-in excuses for suppression of uses of "open" >> information it finds disagreeable. Maybe this concern is over the top, >> just putting it out there. > > Excellent points Mike. So on this basis we'd be leaning towards > non-conformance for the OGL (and any similar licenses). Makes sense to me, where similar = containing the problematic clauses (it is possible to imagine a future ~OGL without them). > If so I'm > wondering if we want to add some clarificatory language to the > Definition around the provision of additional restrictions. I think additional restrictions are out of bounds implicitly if they threaten the freedoms (roughly 1-4, 7-11) and aren't one of the two restrictions mentioned (5&6). But additional clarification could be useful. >> The clauses, even if OKD compliant, are also problematic for >> compatibility with other licenses, though I don't understand why >> sharealike licenses in particular -- eg can one practically adapt an >> OGL work and release under CC-BY or ODC-BY? I know there's an >> expressed intention to permit that, but downstream users would need to >> be more careful than they'd need to be with a CC-BY or ODC-BY work >> that doesn't incorporate OGL material. In any case it would be good to >> document the OKD conformance approval process and in said >> documentation encourage thinking about issues beyond narrow >> conformance such as proliferation and compatibility. >> http://opensource.org/approval may be a good place to start from. > > Ditto. Do you have suggestions for specific mods to: > > First, I hadn't seen that. I see now it is in a drop down. I'd suggest replacing the instruction to email this list with a link to the above at the top of http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ If there's appetite for including OSI-like thinking in the OKD approval process, I'd suggest starting from the OSI docs rather than building up the super lightweight current process page (but maybe I'm just lazy). One approach would be to put relevant OSI docs in etherpad... Mike From tvol at creativecommons.org Thu Dec 15 23:58:34 2011 From: tvol at creativecommons.org (Timothy Vollmer) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:58:34 -0800 Subject: [od-discuss] Creative Commons license version 4.0 -- public discussion now open Message-ID: Hey all-- Apologies for cross posting, and many of you may have already seen the announcement. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30676 (and posted below) CC has begun the 4.0 license versioning process. CC of course welcomes all input during this process over the next year. We hope there will be significant discussion around data and public sector information, and of course the handling of sui generis database rights. Please feel to reach out to us at any time, and we look forward to the dialogue. Regards, timothy ----- *Version 4.0 ? Public Discussion Launches* *Diane Peters, December 9th, 2011* We are pleased to announce the beginning of the public discussion process that we expect to result in version 4.0 of the Creative Commons license suite. *Timeliness and Opportunity* The 4.0 discussions held at the 2011 Global Summit confirmed for CC the need to commence the 4.0 discussion process now if we wish to consider issues relevant to important would-be adopters in a timely manner. As explained following legal sessions at the Summit, version 3.0 is working (and will continue to work) really well for many adopters, but the reality is different for others. The treatment of sui generis database rights in the 3.0 licenses continues to be a show-stopper for many, including governments in Europe. This fosters an environment in which custom licenses proliferate, inevitably resulting in silos of incompatibly-licensed content that cannot be maximally shared and remixed. But there exist still other reasons for pursuing 4.0 at this time, including the desire to adjust the licenses to more fully support adoption by intergovernmental organizations and those looking for a more internationally-oriented license suite. The consequence of not addressing these challenges now is one of opportunity ? bridging these differences sooner rather than later (where possible) is always advisable, especially if a more inclusive commons may result. For those fond of version 3.0, rest assured that CC will continue to support existing and future implementations and adopters that rely on those licenses. We will take pains not to create a 4.0 suite that undermines or otherwise presents challenges for those communities. *Process ? Discussion Forum ? 4.0 Wiki* Importantly, for the first time in CC?s history we begin the versioning process without publishing a draft of the new licenses for review. This is intentional, and it is designed to ensure we hear from the community first. *During this 2-3 month requirements gathering period, we urge everyone with a proposal, concern or other input to please put it forth, as our goal is to make the first draft as comprehensive as possible.* We will alert the community when the requirements period draws to a close, expected to be mid-February 2012. As in the past, we will publish at least two drafts of the licenses before finalizing, which we anticipate will occur late 2012. As with past versioning efforts, the central discussion forum will be CC?s license discuss list (subscribe now). New to the 4.0 process, however, is a dedicated group of wiki pages (accessible through the main 4.0 wiki page ) where topics and proposals under discussion on that email list will be documented, annotated, and evaluated. We have pre-populated the wiki pages with several of the issues we expect to address during this process, framing key topics to help shape the discussion and including known and anticipated proposals related to each. Among others, we expect healthy debates regarding the treatment of moral rights, the definition of NonCommercial, scope of ShareAlike , treatment of sui generis database rights, and much more. The issues are organized by topic with cross-references to related issues throughout the wiki, but there is also an open forum (the Sandbox page ) where you should be encouraged to suggest other topics you feel are important to discuss for version 4.0 (a few placeholders already exist). For a fuller description of CC?s objectives, the process and expected schedule, visit the 4.0 wiki homepage . We encourage everyone who is interested in the future of Creative Commons, and open licensing generally, to participate in this process. The more voices that chime in to raise issues and debate the merits of various proposals, the stronger version 4.0 will be, helping us achieve our goal of creating a set of robust licenses that will endure long into the future. If you have an opinion about how to simplify CC?s attribution requirements, for example, or any of the other important issues we plan to examine during the process, please post your suggestion to the CC license discuss list(subscribe today) and add it to our 4.0 wiki . We look forward to hearing from you. -- Timothy Vollmer http://creativecommons.org/about/people/#timothyvollmer phone = +016086982403 | skype = timothyvollmer | tw = @tvol Please donate to the CC Annual Campaign, going on now! https://creativecommons.net/donate -- Timothy Vollmer http://creativecommons.org/about/people/#timothyvollmer phone = +016086982403 | skype = timothyvollmer | tw = @tvol Please donate to the CC Annual Campaign, going on now! https://creativecommons.net/donate -- Timothy Vollmer http://creativecommons.org/about/people/#timothyvollmer phone = +016086982403 | skype = timothyvollmer | tw = @tvol Please donate to the CC Annual Campaign, going on now! https://creativecommons.net/donate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From herb at dynamic-solutions.com Tue Dec 20 03:07:10 2011 From: herb at dynamic-solutions.com (Herb Lainchbury) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:07:10 -0800 Subject: [od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant? In-Reply-To: References: <56A1DF416D6C48B8A30A72071D087C7F@HPLAPTOP>

Message-ID: +1 "If so I'm wondering if we want to add some clarificatory language to the Definition around the provision of additional restrictions." I think this is what is needed. The clauses called out in the OGL are: [1] * ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any official status or that the Information Provider endorses you or your use of the Information; [2] * ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source; [3] * ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. My thoughts on this: If we say that it's fine to add additional restrictions and still be considered open, then why bother calling out the ones that are explicitly allowed, such as attribution. I think that we have to consider that putting additional restrictions on data beyond the ones explicitly mentioned in the opendefinition defeats the definition itself. Looking at the OGL specifically, the three additional clauses break down into 8 restrictions. They are: [1a] ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests any official status [1b] ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests that the Information Provider endorses you [1c] ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests that the Information Provider endorses your use of the Information [2a] ensure that you do not mislead others [2b] ensure that you do not misrepresent the Information [2c] ensure that you do not misrepresent its source [3a] ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998 [3b] ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 a1, 1b, 1c, 2a seem to be saying "don't commit fraud", 2b and 2c seem to be talking specifically about misrepresentation, and 3a, and 3b essentially say "don't break the law". Thus, these constraints are basically short versions of existing laws and policies. My main concern is that these particular constraints are described with words like "ensure", "suggests" and "mislead", which leave too much room for error and abuse and misunderstanding. They will be interpreted in different ways by different people causing confusion and uncertainty and thus they undermine the opendefinition and discourage people from using open data overall while apparently providing no additional protection to governments. Because this affects multiple sections of the definition, I think perhaps the best way to modify the definition is to add a condition. Here's my suggested additional condition: 12. THE LICENSE MUST NOT IMPOSE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS The license must not place any additional restrictions or conditions on the access, use, reuse or redistribution of the data other than those explicitly described under this definition. I hope that's helpful. Herb On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote: > To return to this very useful thread (apologies for dropping it at my end!) > > On 19 October 2011 18:56, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > > Hi Rufus and all, > > > > I think the 3 clauses you've called out are quite problematic. IANAL > > but "ensure" sounds burdensome, "official" is unclear, and "mislead" > > is ripe for abuse. As the OKD draws much from the OSD, which itself is > > based on the DFSG, I take license to call out the > > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#tentacles_of_evil test. I > > think analogously, if an oppressive government comes to power, the OGL > > provides built-in excuses for suppression of uses of "open" > > information it finds disagreeable. Maybe this concern is over the top, > > just putting it out there. > > Excellent points Mike. So on this basis we'd be leaning towards > non-conformance for the OGL (and any similar licenses). If so I'm > wondering if we want to add some clarificatory language to the > Definition around the provision of additional restrictions. > > > The clauses, even if OKD compliant, are also problematic for > > compatibility with other licenses, though I don't understand why > > sharealike licenses in particular -- eg can one practically adapt an > > OGL work and release under CC-BY or ODC-BY? I know there's an > > expressed intention to permit that, but downstream users would need to > > be more careful than they'd need to be with a CC-BY or ODC-BY work > > that doesn't incorporate OGL material. In any case it would be good to > > document the OKD conformance approval process and in said > > documentation encourage thinking about issues beyond narrow > > conformance such as proliferation and compatibility. > > http://opensource.org/approval may be a good place to start from. > > Ditto. Do you have suggestions for specific mods to: > > > > Rufus > > _______________________________________________ > od-discuss mailing list > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > -- Herb Lainchbury Dynamic Solutions Inc. www.dynamic-solutions.com http://twitter.com/herblainchbury -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ml at creativecommons.org Tue Dec 20 03:37:42 2011 From: ml at creativecommons.org (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:37:42 -0800 Subject: [od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant? In-Reply-To: References: <56A1DF416D6C48B8A30A72071D087C7F@HPLAPTOP>

Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote: > Looking at the OGL specifically, the three additional clauses break down > into 8 restrictions. ?They are: > > [1a]?ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that suggests?any > official status > [1b]?ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that?suggests > that?the Information Provider endorses you > [1c]?ensure that you do not use the Information in a way that?suggests > that?the Information Provider endorses?your use of the Information > [2a] ensure that you do not mislead others > [2b]?ensure that you do not?misrepresent the?Information > [2c]?ensure that you do not?misrepresent?its?source > [3a] ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the > Data?Protection Act 1998 > [3b]?ensure that your use of the Information does not breach?the Privacy and > Electronic Communications (EC?Directive) Regulations 2003 > > > a1, 1b, 1c, 2a seem to be saying "don't commit fraud", > 2b and 2c seem to be talking specifically about misrepresentation, > and 3a, and 3b essentially say "don't break the law". > > Thus, these constraints are basically short versions of existing laws and > policies. > > My main concern is that these particular constraints?are described with > words like "ensure", "suggests" and "mislead", which leave too much room > for > error and abuse and misunderstanding. ?They will be?interpreted in different > ways by different people causing confusion and uncertainty and thus > they undermine the opendefinition and discourage people from using open data > overall while apparently providing no additional protection to governments. Great breakdown. I agree, with minor caveat that 1b and 1c are probably ok per OKD's integrity section. If they're not, then I'd guess CC BY/BY-SA, FDL (and maybe others, haven't checked carefully) not permitting endorsement shouldn't have been approved. Or the OKD integrity language should be modified. > Because this affects multiple sections of the definition, I think perhaps > the best way to modify the definition is to add a condition. > > Here's my suggested additional condition: > > 12. ?THE LICENSE MUST NOT IMPOSE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS > The license must not place any additional restrictions or conditions on the > access, use, reuse or redistribution of the data other than those explicitly > described under this definition. That looks straightforward to me, but raises the issue of restrictions on distributing with DRM/TPM, which are present in at least CC BY/BY-SA, FDL, ODBL, perhaps others. Maybe a modification of OKD section 4, which could be changed to allow the license to restrict technical restrictions. Mike From sandklef at chalmers.se Thu Dec 8 21:47:04 2011 From: sandklef at chalmers.se (Henrik Sandklef) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:47:04 +0100 Subject: [od-discuss] Broken link on http://opendefinition.org/ Message-ID: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> Hello There seems to be a missing link on the front page of od. Open Software Service Definition (OSSD) links to http://opendefinition.org/ossd which is not a valid page* I suspect it should link to this instead: http://opendefinition.org/software-service/ regards, henrik sandklef *) "This is somewhat embarrassing, isn?t it?" From lucy.chambers at okfn.org Fri Dec 9 09:15:01 2011 From: lucy.chambers at okfn.org (Lucy Chambers) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 09:15:01 +0000 Subject: [od-discuss] Broken link on http://opendefinition.org/ In-Reply-To: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> References: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> Message-ID: Dear Henrik, Thank you very much for pointing this out. @Mark - do you have sufficient access to change this? Lucy On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Henrik Sandklef wrote: > Hello > > There seems to be a missing link on the front page of od. > > Open Software Service Definition (OSSD) links to > http://opendefinition.org/ossd which is not a valid page* > > I suspect it should link to this instead: > http://opendefinition.org/software-service/ > > regards, henrik sandklef > > *) "This is somewhat embarrassing, isn?t it?" > > _______________________________________________ > od-discuss mailing list > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > -- Lucy Chambers Community Coordinator Open Knowledge Foundation http://okfn.org/ Skype: lucyfediachambers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rufus.pollock at okfn.org Fri Dec 9 10:07:13 2011 From: rufus.pollock at okfn.org (Rufus Pollock) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:07:13 +0000 Subject: [od-discuss] Broken link on http://opendefinition.org/ In-Reply-To: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> References: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> Message-ID: On 8 December 2011 21:47, Henrik Sandklef wrote: > Hello > > ?There seems to be a missing link on the front page of od. > > ?Open Software Service Definition (OSSD) links to > http://opendefinition.org/ossd which is not a valid page* It certainly is the case that: (note trailing slash) does redirect. What's odd is that normally wordpress should add a trailing slash to urls but it is not for that URL. In any case have fixed link on the frontpage and we will look into the redirection. Rufus > ?I suspect it should link to this instead: > http://opendefinition.org/software-service/ > > regards, henrik sandklef > > *) "This is somewhat embarrassing, isn?t it?" > > _______________________________________________ > od-discuss mailing list > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss -- Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ From mark at countryman.co.za Fri Dec 9 11:29:46 2011 From: mark at countryman.co.za (mark herringer) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:29:46 +0000 Subject: [od-discuss] Broken link on http://opendefinition.org/ In-Reply-To: References: <4EE13058.8010409@chalmers.se> Message-ID: link works and looks like this.. Open Software Service Definition (OSSD) On 9 December 2011 10:07, Rufus Pollock wrote: > On 8 December 2011 21:47, Henrik Sandklef wrote: > > Hello > > > > There seems to be a missing link on the front page of od. > > > > Open Software Service Definition (OSSD) links to > > http://opendefinition.org/ossd which is not a valid page* > > It certainly is the case that: > (note trailing slash) > does redirect. > > What's odd is that normally wordpress should add a trailing slash to > urls but it is not for that URL. In any case have fixed link on the > frontpage and we will look into the redirection. > > Rufus > > > I suspect it should link to this instead: > > http://opendefinition.org/software-service/ > > > > regards, henrik sandklef > > > > *) "This is somewhat embarrassing, isn?t it?" > > > > _______________________________________________ > > od-discuss mailing list > > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > > > > -- > Co-Founder, Open Knowledge Foundation > Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age > http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > od-discuss mailing list > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From herb at dynamic-solutions.com Tue Dec 13 00:46:01 2011 From: herb at dynamic-solutions.com (Herb Lainchbury) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:46:01 -0800 Subject: [od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant? In-Reply-To: References: <56A1DF416D6C48B8A30A72071D087C7F@HPLAPTOP>