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

[Herb Lainchbury]

I agree with Luis, that this separation of "open license" and "open work"
makes sense.

I think Kent's suggestion to address the *applicability* of the license in
the *Access* principle re-enforces my earlier suggestion that applicability
problems arising out of license terms seem insufficient to deem a license
not open (unless they prohibit application entirely) precisely because *
Access* is not currently addressed as a license issue (as Luis' dev version
of 2.x demonstrates).

If we want to address exemptions/non-ambiguous applicability as a license
issue (i.e. we're willing to call a license non-open) then I think there
needs to be something in the license related clauses that addresses
exemptions/applicability stating that licenses must be *able to be* clearly
and unambiguously be associated with a specific work, a principle we've
seen violated in recent forks of the OGL.

i.e. I think there needs to be something that addresses both the license
(as not yet applied) and the work (as applied).

Especially, if we continue, as I think makes sense, down the road of
separating "open license" from "open work".

Herb






On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>



-- 
Herb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130828/5672720b/attachment-0001.html>