[od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant?

Mon Jan 9 03:36:11 UTC 2012

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 08/01/12 01:58, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Herb Lainchbury
>> <herb at dynamic-solutions.com <mailto: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),
>
> DRM is a restriction that can be used to make resources non-free.
> Disallowing it ensures that the work remains free. Even if we have to
> regard this as a restriction rather than as a refusal of restriction for
> some reason, its net result is more general freedom.

Allow me to further qualify "reasonable" -- people who care about
freedom and aren't generally crazy disagree. But they're a minority; I
agree with you. Presumably you agree that if a future OKD is to
clarify that restrictions not mentioned are non-open that prohibiting
DRM needs to be explicitly mentioned as ok in an open license; that's
what I've proposed.

> Like copyleft, this is a measure that ensures freedom for everyone
> globally rather than privileging individual power over others locally.
And like copyleft, anti-DRM clauses in licenses are a strategic*
matter, but they're both clearly ok for open licenses.
Mike
* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/03/15/gpl-consistency.html