[od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant?

Sun Jan 1 19:56:49 UTC 2012

Mike,
To make sure I understand you, I think you're saying:

   1. restrictions 1b and 1c should be permitted under the opendefintion
   2. the clause I drafted raises the issue of DRM/TPM restrictions

My thoughts:

   1. Restrictions 1b and 1c are already covered by laws in most countries
   (fraud).  While these restrictions don't appear to impose any additional
   constraints on consumers, I wouldn't want to have that argument be the
   basis for allowing all sorts of redundant restrictions.  Publishers,
   however, seem to be sensitive about this and feel the need to reiterate the
   law in this particular instance.  If we don't allow this, we run the risk
   of eliminating existing licenses on this basis, which I would rather not
   do.  I would probably favour allowing these two particular restrictions,
   which would mean one more small change to the opendefinition.

   2. I think that DRM/TPM needs to be restricted, however, doesn't my
   proposed clause cover this by restricting ALL other restrictions?  If we
   feel we need to explicitly include a clause about this then we could
   potentially adapt language from CC which says: "You may not impose any
   effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a
   recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that
   recipient under the terms of the License."

Thoughts?

Herb

ps.  Happy New Year all!

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Herb Lainchbury
> <herb at dynamic-solutions.com> 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
>

-- 
Herb Lainchbury
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
www.dynamic-solutions.com
http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20120101/4b2b4fa4/attachment.html>