[od-discuss] UK OGL Compliant?

Thu Jan 12 18:16:23 UTC 2012

"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."

Agreed.

I think this will be helpful.

H

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20120112/22955984/attachment-0001.html>