[od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant?

Sat Jan 7 01:29:25 UTC 2012

My mistake.   I think (hope) I get what you were saying now.

There is a class of licensing restrictions like:
   * no redistribution with DRM

The question is, can a work be released with a license containing a
restriction like that and still be considered open.  Right now my
additional clause would say "No" and I think that's the right answer.

If I look at the opendefinition statement *“A piece of content or data is
open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it — subject only,
at most, to the requirement to attribute and share-alike.”*

It clearly says that users can only be subject, *at most*, to two possible
requirements (oddly, the points we are trying to fix don't say that!).
 Those two allowed requirements are attribution and share-alike.

The point I have proposed basically makes the "AT MOST" part of the above
statement explicit.

If we want to add more allowable restrictions, like "Your license can
prohibit the use of DRM", then that's fine and we can discuss that too.
 There may be restrictions besides Attribution and share-alike that we
would allow if we can make a good case for them.

My hope is that we get something into the definition to plug the hole that
allows additional restrictions beyond the two we have.  As it stands there
doesn't appear to be any restriction on additional restrictions, except
thankfully in the main opendefinition statement, which is great.

If we can agree that the hole needs to be plugged, then it makes sense to
think about any additional restrictions that might be allowed under the
definition.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness on this.

H

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Herb Lainchbury
> <herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
> > "Your proposed clause concerns *license* conditions; it disallows
> > licenses with ones not explicitly permitted by the OKD."
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >
> > "You may think open licenses ought include conditions prohibiting DRM,
> > in which case OKD ought to explicitly say such conditions permitted in
> > compliant licenses."
> >
> > No.  I agree with you, point 4 covers it.
>
> But I don't agree -- point 4 does not say a compliant license may
> restrict technical restrictions. It says that a work may not have
> technical restrictions.
>
> If a there's appetite for it, I think breaking OKD into sections
> regarding requirements for works and for licenses might make it easier
> to read. Smaller edit along those lines would be to bold defined terms
> "work", "license", "package" wherever they appear to call out what a
> specific point it talking about more strongly.
>
> > "For a *work* to be open, OKD addresses this in point 4, abcense of
> > technical restrictions. Possibly DRM should be mentioned in the text
> > for readability and optimization (ha, but seriously), but the
> > substance doesn't need changing."
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > This makes sense to me.
>
> Are you sure? :)
>
> 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/20120106/b017f095/attachment-0001.html>