[od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant?

Sun Jan 8 01:58:07 UTC 2012

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Herb Lainchbury
<herb at dynamic-solutions.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

That's a reasonable position, in particular on DRM (though usually not
majority opinion), though I think some qualification is going to be needed
even with respect to other requirements; see below.

> 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 quote above is from http://opendefinition.org not
http://opendefinition.org/okf

As a summary, it fits current and potential future OKD, and is quite
flexible -- "attribute" could also imply the OKD's integrity clause, and
"share-alike" addition to requiring the same or similar license for
adaptations, could imply requiring open, transparent, no-DRM formats.

> 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.
>

I don't think there's a gaping hole to be plugged, as lots of restrictions
are implicitly out as I said in
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2011-December/000087.html but it
would be good to plug anyway, even if only additional clarity is achieved
(no small thing).

In order to more easily discuss concrete changes, I made a copy of and
edits to the OKD at https://gitorious.org/floss-docs-diffs ... notes on
edits inline below:

 <article id="post-17" class="post-17 page type-page status-publish hentry">
>      <header class="entry-header">
> -        <h1 class="entry-title">Open Definition</h1>
> +        <h1 class="entry-title">Open Knowledge Definition</h1>
>      </header><!-- .entry-header -->
>

The definition is usually called the OKD or Open Knowledge Definition, and
it purports to define open for knowledge. Just a small nit that occurs to
me every time I look at the document.

>      <div class="entry-content">
> -        <p>Version 1.1</p>
> +        <p>Version UN.OFFICIAL</p>
>
>  <a class="toc-anchor" name="terminology"></a><a class="toc-anchor"
> name="toc-anchor-17-1"></a><h2>Terminology</h2>
>
>  <p>The term <strong>knowledge</strong> is taken to include:</p>
>
>  <ol>
>  <li>Content such as music, films, books</li>
>  <li>Data be it scientific, historical, geographic or otherwise</li>
>  <li>Government and other administrative information</li>
>  </ol>
>
> -<p>Software is excluded despite its obvious centrality because it is
> already adequately addressed by previous work.</p>
> +<p>Software is excluded despite its obvious centrality because it is
> already adequately addressed by previous work, including the <a href="
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd">Open Source Definition</a> (OSD),
> upon which this document is modeled.</p>
>

OSD is referred to several times in comments, but never expanded.

>  <p>The term <strong>work</strong> will be used to denote the item or
> piece of knowledge which is being transferred.</p>
>
>  <p>The term <strong>package</strong> may also be used to denote a
> collection of works. Of course such a package may be considered a work in
> itself.</p>
>
>  <p>The term <strong>license</strong> refers to the legal license under
> which the work is made available. Where no license has been made this
> should be interpreted as referring to the resulting default legal
> conditions under which the work is available (for example copyright).</p>
>
>  <a class="toc-anchor" name="the-definition"></a><a class="toc-anchor"
> name="toc-anchor-17-2"></a><h2>The Definition</h2>
>
> -<p>A work is open if its manner of distribution satisfies the following
> conditions:</p>
> +<p>A <strong>work</strong> is open if its manner of distribution
> satisfies the following conditions, which simultaneously delimit the
> characteristics of a suitable open <strong>license</strong>:</p>
>

Make explicit about how document defines what an open license is.

>  <a class="toc-anchor" name="1-access"></a><a class="toc-anchor"
> name="toc-anchor-17-3"></a><h3>1. Access</h3>
>
> -<p>The work shall be available as a whole and at no more than a
> reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet
> without charge. The work must also be available in a convenient and
> modifiable form.</p>
> +<p>The <strong>work</strong> shall be available as a whole and at no more
> than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the
> Internet without charge. The <strong>work</strong> must also be available
> in a convenient and modifiable form. The <strong>license</strong> may
> require the work to be available in a convenient and modifiable form.</p>

Bold first instance of work, as this clause adds a requirement for an open
work. Add sentence saying a license can require modifiable form, otherwise
added no-additional-restrictions clause makes existing open licenses
problematic, including ODbL, FDL, and GPL.

>
>  <p><em>Comment: This can be summarized as ‘social’ openness
> – not only are you allowed to get the work but you can get it.
> ‘As a whole’ prevents the limitation of access by indirect
> means, for example by only allowing access to a few items of a database at
> a time.</em></p>
>
>  <a class="toc-anchor" name="2-redistribution"></a><a class="toc-anchor"
> name="toc-anchor-17-4"></a><h3>2. Redistribution</h3>
>
> -<p>The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away
> the work either on its own or as part of a package made from works from
> many different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other
> fee for such sale or distribution.</p>
> +<p>The <strong>license</strong> shall not restrict any party from selling
> or giving away the work either on its own or as part of a package made from
> works from many different sources. The <strong>license</strong> shall not
> require a royalty or other fee for such sale or distribution.</p>
>

Bold license for each requirement this clause adds for open licenses.

>  <a class="toc-anchor" name="3-reuse"></a><a class="toc-anchor"
> name="toc-anchor-17-5"></a><h3>3. Reuse</h3>
>
> -<p>The license must allow for modifications and derivative works and must
> allow them to be distributed under the terms of the original work.</p>
> +<p>The <strong>license</strong> must allow for modifications and
> derivative works and must allow them to be distributed under the terms of
> the original work.</p>
>

Bold license for requirement this clause adds for open licenses.

>  <p><em>Comment: Note that this clause does not prevent the use of
> ‘viral’ or share-alike licenses that require redistribution of
> modifications under the same terms as the original.</em></p>
>
>  <a class="toc-anchor"
> name="4-absence-of-technological-restriction"></a><a class="toc-anchor"
> name="toc-anchor-17-6"></a><h3>4. Absence of Technological Restriction</h3>
>
> -<p>The work must be provided in such a form that there are no
> technological obstacles to the performance of the above activities. This
> can be achieved by the provision of the work in an open data format, i.e.
> one whose specification is publicly and freely available and which places
> no restrictions monetary or otherwise upon its use.</p>
> +<p>The <strong>work</strong> must be provided in such a form that there
> are no technological obstacles to the performance of the above activities.
> This can be achieved by the provision of the work in an open data format,
> i.e. one whose specification is publicly and freely available and which
> places no restrictions monetary or otherwise upon its use. The
> <strong>license</strong> may prohibit technological restrictions.</p>
>

Bold work for each requirement this clause adds for open works. Add
sentence permitting open licenses to prohibit technological restrictions.
Latter could be toned down, permitting open licenses to require provision
of work without technological restrictions, which might mean parallel
distribution (eg ODbL) ok, but prohibition (CC-BY/BY-SA, FDL) would not be
open.

>  <a class="toc-anchor" name="5-attribution"></a><a class="toc-anchor"
> name="toc-anchor-17-7"></a><h3>5. Attribution</h3>
>
> -<p>The license may require as a condition for redistribution and re-use
> the attribution of the contributors and creators to the work. If this
> condition is imposed it must not be onerous. For example if attribution is
> required a list of those requiring attribution should accompany the
> work.</p>
> +<p>The <strong>license</strong> may require as a condition for
> redistribution and re-use the attribution of the contributors and creators
> to the work. If this condition is imposed it must not be onerous. For
> example if attribution is required a list of those requiring attribution
> should accompany the <strong>work</strong>.</p>
>

Bold license and work for option and requirement this clause adds for each.

>  <a class="toc-anchor" name="6-integrity"></a><a class="toc-anchor"
> name="toc-anchor-17-8"></a><h3>6. Integrity</h3>
>
> -<p>The license may require as a condition for the work being distributed
> in modified form that the resulting work carry a different name or version
> number from the original work.</p>
> +<p>The <strong>license</strong> may require as a condition for the work
> being distributed in modified form that the resulting work carry a
> different name or version number from the original work.</p>
>

Bold license for option this clause adds for open licenses.

>  <a class="toc-anchor"
> name="7-no-discrimination-against-persons-or-groups"></a><a
> class="toc-anchor" name="toc-anchor-17-9"></a><h3>7. No Discrimination
> Against Persons or Groups</h3>
>
> -<p>The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
> persons.</p>
> +<p>The <strong>license</strong> must not discriminate against any person
> or group of persons.</p>
>

Bold license for requirement this clause adds for open licenses.

>  <p><em>Comment: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the
> maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to
> contribute to open knowledge. Therefore we forbid any open-knowledge
> license from locking anybody out of the process.</em></p>
>
>  <p><em>Comment: this is taken directly from item 5 of the OSD.</em></p>
>
>  <a class="toc-anchor"
> name="8-no-discrimination-against-fields-of-endeavor"></a><a
> class="toc-anchor" name="toc-anchor-17-10"></a><h3>8. No Discrimination
> Against Fields of Endeavor</h3>
>
> -<p>The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work in a
> specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the work from
> being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.</p>
> +<p>The <strong>license</strong> must not restrict anyone from making use
> of the work in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not
> restrict the work from being used in a business, or from being used for
> genetic research.</p>
>

Bold license for requirement this clause adds for open licenses.

>  <p><em>Comment: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license
> traps that prevent open material from being used commercially. We want
> commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.</em></p>
>
>  <p><em>Comment: this is taken directly from item 6 of the OSD.</em></p>
>
>  <a class="toc-anchor" name="9-distribution-of-license"></a><a
> class="toc-anchor" name="toc-anchor-17-11"></a><h3>9. Distribution of
> License</h3>
>
> -<p>The rights attached to the work must apply to all to whom it is
> redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by
> those parties.</p>
> +<p>The rights attached to the <strong>work</strong> must apply to all to
> whom it is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional
> license by those parties.</p>
>

Bold work for requirement this clause adds for open works.

>  <p><em>Comment: This clause is intended to forbid closing up knowledge by
> indirect means such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement.</em></p>
>
>  <p><em>Comment: this is taken directly from item 7 of the OSD.</em></p>
>
>  <a class="toc-anchor"
> name="10-license-must-not-be-specific-to-a-package"></a><a
> class="toc-anchor" name="toc-anchor-17-12"></a><h3>10. License Must Not Be
> Specific to a Package</h3>
>
> -<p>The rights attached to the work must not depend on the work being part
> of a particular package. If the work is extracted from that package and
> used or distributed within the terms of the work’s license, all
> parties to whom the work is redistributed should have the same rights as
> those that are granted in conjunction with the original package.</p>
> +<p>The rights attached to the <strong>work</strong> must not depend on
> the work being part of a particular package. If the work is extracted from
> that package and used or distributed within the terms of the work’s
> license, all parties to whom the work is redistributed should have the same
> rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original
> package.</p>
>

Bold work for requirement this clause adds for open works.

>  <p><em>Comment: this is taken directly from item 8 of the OSD.</em></p>
>
>  <a class="toc-anchor"
> name="11-license-must-not-restrict-the-distribution-of-other-works"></a><a
> class="toc-anchor" name="toc-anchor-17-13"></a><h3>11. License Must Not
> Restrict the Distribution of Other Works</h3>
>
> -<p>The license must not place restrictions on other works that are
> distributed along with the licensed work. For example, the license must not
> insist that all other works distributed on the same medium are open.</p>
> +<p>The <strong>license</strong> must not place restrictions on other
> works that are distributed along with the licensed work. For example, the
> license must not insist that all other works distributed on the same medium
> are open.</p>
>

Bold license for requirement this clause adds for open licenses.

>  <p><em>Comment: Distributors of open knowledge have the right to make
> their own choices. Note that ‘share-alike’ licenses are
> conformant since those provisions only apply if the whole forms a single
> work.</em></p>
>
>  <p><em>Comment: this is taken directly from item 9 of the OSD.</em></p>
> +
> +<a class="toc-anchor"
> name="12-license-must-not-impose-additional-restrictions"></a><a
> class="toc-anchor" name="toc-anchor-17-14"></a><h3>12. License Must Not
> Impose Additional Restrictions</h3>
> +
> +<p>The <strong>license</strong> 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.</p>
> +
> +<p><em>Comment: This clause is intended to clarify that presence of
> restrictions not specifically permitted above make a license non-open. Such
> restrictions are usually one or more of onerous, vague, unnecessary (for
> example, requiring following an unrelated law), and always harmful to
> compatibility among open licenses.</em></p>
>

 Add no further restrictions clause with language you (Herb) suggested.

Discuss...

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20120107/b58e7f37/attachment-0001.html>