No subject
Sun Mar 31 09:34:23 UTC 2013
under which the work is made available."
The question which the open definition does not currently address is "When
does a licence apply to a work?".
With respect to licences, the definition addresses only the permissiveness
of the licence, not how it is applied. It says, in effect, if a licence
with these properties is applied to a work, and the work is released in
such a way as it meets the other non-licence related conditions of
openness, then the work is considered open.
So, while a given licence may be open - as I think is the case with the
BC-OGL and the AB-OGL, that's not sufficient to say that a certain work is
open.
For the work to be open it has to be accessible, re-distributable,
re-usable, etc.
No question, any publisher applying any open license in this manner will
discourage use because consumers will not know if the license applies and
may not have the resources to find out, but that's not the fault of a
license. Perhaps even licenses such as the PDDL could be used in a similar
manner and the PDDL would be considered open but the works might not.
And, to go one step further, think that it is potentially possible that an
exemption could make a license non-open if it made it impossible to use in
opening a work. If for example we saw an exemption that said: "this
license does not cover commercial use", then that would clearly make it
impossible to apply the license in a non-discriminatory way to any work.
But so long as a license meets the license related conditions of the
definition and could potentially be applied successfully to make at least
one work open, then the I think license should be considered open.
I think the correct way to deal with the conditions under which a license
is applied or not (including exemptions), is not by judging the licence,
but by judging the way in which the licence is applied. And, so far, I
don't think we have a clause for that. Maybe an idea for v1.3?
Unless I am missing something, right now I am +1/+1.
Happy to hear counter arguments.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Andrew Stott
> <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:
> > I'm broadly with Kent.
>
> Thanks to Kent for the analysis, which points to a possible important
> difference between BC and Alberta. If anyone wants to +1/-1 them
> separately, please do.
>
> > The UK OGL 2.0 has an exemption for "information that has neither been
> > published nor disclosed under information access legislation (including
> the
> > Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the
> consent
> > of the Information Provider;". As far as I can see the policy intent is
> to
> > exempt from the licence information which has been leaked or stolen. It
> is
> > important to have the neither-nor construct because as a matter of policy
> > the UK has published information which had previously been refused under
> the
> > FOI Act, and in addition information which has been published is not
> > actually accessible under the UK-FOI. Moreover the UK needs a broad
> > reference to "information access legislation" since there are rights to
> > information under not only the FOI Act but also under the Environmental
> > Protection Regulations and other legislation.
> >
> > I'm not happy with the Alberta version because it could exclude published
> > information if that information was not accessible under applicable laws;
> > that makes it more difficult for users to establish that they have Open
> > rights to published information. It would be better to use the UK
> > neither-nor of publication and accessibility.
>
> This seems to put users in a bad spot, perhaps not quite as bad as the
> "misleading" term thankfully stricken from UK OGL 2.0, but precisely
> not the sort of thing to desire from a public license, which is
> clarity of copyright permission. I'm *leaning* toward -1 on both
> Alberta and BC at this point, but would be happy to hear further
> arguments either way.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--089e01419d1ade5f2a04e195bd62
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>My thought is that the open definition does not addre=
ss exemptions for licenses. =A0Maybe it should, but it doesn't now. =A0=
The definition only addresses requirements of the licence when applied to a=
work.</div>
<div><br></div><div>From the definition: "The term **license** refers =
to the legal license under which the work is made available."</div><di=
v><br></div><div>The question which the open definition does not currently =
address is "When does a licence apply to a work?".</div>
<div><br></div><div>With respect to licences, the definition addresses only=
the permissiveness of the licence, not how it is applied. =A0It says, in e=
ffect, if a licence with these properties is applied to a work, and the wor=
k is released in such a way as it meets the other non-licence related condi=
tions of openness, then the work is considered open.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, while a given licence may be open - as I think is t=
he case with the BC-OGL and the AB-OGL, that's not sufficient to say th=
at a certain work is open.</div><div><br></div><div>For the work to be open=
it has to be accessible, re-distributable, re-usable, etc.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>No question, any publisher applying any open lice=
nse in this manner will discourage use because consumers will not know if t=
he license applies and may not have the resources to find out, but that'=
;s not the fault of a license. =A0Perhaps even licenses such as the PDDL co=
uld be used in a similar manner and the PDDL would be considered open but t=
he works might not.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>And, to go one step further, think that it is pot=
entially possible that an exemption could make a license non-open if it mad=
e it impossible to use in opening a work. =A0 If for example we saw an exem=
ption that said: "this license does not cover commercial use", th=
en that would clearly make it impossible to apply the license in a non-disc=
riminatory way to any work.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But so long as a license meets the license related cond=
itions of the definition and could potentially be applied successfully to m=
ake at least one work open, then the I think license should be considered o=
pen.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I think the correct way to deal with the conditions und=
er which a license is applied or not (including exemptions), is not by judg=
ing the licence, but by judging the way in which the licence is applied. =
=A0And, so far, I don't think we have a clause for that. =A0Maybe an id=
ea for v1.3?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Unless I am missing something, right now I am +1/+1.<br=
></div><div><br></div><div>Happy to hear counter arguments.</div><div><br><=
/div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On=
Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mike Linksvayer <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:ml at gondwanaland.com" target=3D"_blank">ml at gondwanaland.com</a>&=
gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:=
18 AM, Andrew Stott<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com">andrew.stott at dirdigeng.co=
m</a>> wrote:<br>
> I'm broadly with Kent.<br>
<br>
</div>Thanks to Kent for the analysis, which points to a possible important=
<br>
difference between BC and Alberta. If anyone wants to +1/-1 them<br>
separately, please do.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
> The UK OGL 2.0 has an exemption for "information that has neither=
been<br>
> published nor disclosed under information access legislation (includin=
g the<br>
> Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the co=
nsent<br>
> of the Information Provider;". =A0As far as I can see the policy =
intent is to<br>
> exempt from the licence information which has been leaked or stolen. =
=A0It is<br>
> important to have the neither-nor construct because as a matter of pol=
icy<br>
> the UK has published information which had previously been refused und=
er the<br>
> FOI Act, and in addition information which has been published is not<b=
r>
> actually accessible under the UK-FOI. =A0Moreover the UK needs a broad=
<br>
> reference to "information access legislation" since there ar=
e rights to<br>
> information under not only the FOI Act but also under the Environmenta=
l<br>
> Protection Regulations and other legislation.<br>
><br>
> I'm not happy with the Alberta version because it could exclude pu=
blished<br>
> information if that information was not accessible under applicable la=
ws;<br>
> that makes it more difficult for users to establish that they have Ope=
n<br>
> rights to published information. =A0It would be better to use the UK<b=
r>
> neither-nor of publication and accessibility.<br>
<br>
</div>This seems to put users in a bad spot, perhaps not quite as bad as th=
e<br>
=A0"misleading" term thankfully stricken from UK OGL 2.0, but pre=
cisely<br>
not the sort of thing to desire from a public license, which is<br>
clarity of copyright permission. I'm *leaning* toward -1 on both<br>
Alberta and BC at this point, but would be happy to hear further<br>
arguments either way.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
Mike<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
od-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org">od-discuss at lists.okfn.org</a><=
br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss" target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href=3D"http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss" t=
arget=3D"_blank">http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
<div dir=3D"ltr"><span></span><span></span>Herb</div>
</div>
--089e01419d1ade5f2a04e195bd62--
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list