[od-discuss] OD addendum proposal for dealing with ambiguous license exemptions

Thu Aug 15 18:40:07 UTC 2013

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca> wrote:
>> Comments, wording adjustments, or alternative proposals welcome.  This
>> addition is more to do with legal access and legal use than the present
>> actual access, so another option would be to put something similar to the
>> above in it's own section.
>
> Right, I need to think about this a bit; other comments welcome. I do
> like how you've also addressed the work.

I think Kent's suggestion is perfectly fine.

I would like to take this opportunity to note that we're using a
definition that talks about open works to analyze open licenses. And
that's a bit messy and something we might want to address in the
future, by splitting out the definition into two parts:

1. what defines an open license

2. what defines an open work

The first criteria for an open work would be "is licensed under an
open license"; another criteria for an open work would be Kent's "the
open license is unambiguously applied", etc.

Putting this on the radar-
Luis