[od-discuss] v2 - use

Tue Apr 1 10:01:04 UTC 2014

On 30 March 2014 21:50, Herb Lainchbury <herb.lainchbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> We could turn the former "fields of endeavour" text into a comment to make
> it clearer:
>
> 1.1.1 Use
> The license must allow the use of the licensed work.
>
> 1.1.6 Impartiality
> The license must treat all persons or groups of persons equally.
>
> 1.1.8 Application to Any Purpose
> The license must allow use, redistribution, modification and compilation,
> by any person or group of persons, for any purpose.
>
> Comment:
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work in a
> specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the work from
> being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
>
> Comment: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps
> that prevent open material from being used commercially. We want commercial
> users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
>
> Comment: this is adapted from item 6 of the OSD.
>

Sounds good.

>
> ----
>
> "I also wonder re-reading now whether we need something about charging in
> the license section"
>
> I think it does make sense to add another condition in the license section
> about charging.
>
> Here is my first attempt.  note: It doesn't allow for "reasonable
> reproduction costs" as 1.x does.  I can't think of a reason to leave that
> door open, nor can I think of an current example of open data were the
> publisher charges.  Would be happy to hear about examples that mean that
> this allowance should be left in.
>

I think we could allow reasonable reproduction costs still - though with
the indication about downloading over the internet for free. The logic here
is that very large datasets could have some cost and as long as only
*reproduction* cost is asked for I think there isn't an issue here.

> 1.1.x Gratis
> The license must not impose any fee arrangements, compensation or monetary
> remuneration as part of it's conditions.
>

Perhaps:

1.1.x No Charge

The license must not impose any fee arrangements, compensation or monetary
remuneration as part of it's conditions. The only charge that may be made
is for any one-off reproduction cost, in the common case of downloading
over the internet the this cost would normally be zero.

Rufus

>
>
> Herb
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. I'm not sure here. I think it might be good to keep item 1 really
>> simple and just say use and then reserve for any purpose to 1.1.8 (where we
>> can also be super clear about commercial being ok in the comment or text).
>>
>> I also wonder re-reading now whether we need something about charging in
>> the license section (I know we have it in access) but is also a key aspect
>> of the license (i.e. license cannot impose any fee arrangement as part of
>> its conditions).
>>
>> Rufus
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 25 March 2014, Herb Lainchbury <herb.lainchbury at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In my previous note:
>>>
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-March/000807.html
>>>
>>> I mentioned that I think there is some redundancy in the v2 conditions,
>>> which I would consider eliminating if it makes sense.
>>>
>>> Specifically, condition 1.1.1 states:
>>>
>>> 1.1.1 Use
>>> The license must allow the use of the licensed work for any purpose.
>>>
>>> and condition 1.1.6 states:
>>>
>>> 1.1.6 Impartiality
>>> The license must treat all persons or groups of persons equally.
>>>
>>> while condition 1.1.8 states:
>>>
>>> 1.1.8 Application to Any Purpose
>>> The license must allow use, redistribution, modification and
>>> compilation, by any person or group of persons, for any purpose. These
>>> rights must apply independently of other legal agreements, without any
>>> obligation to agree to additional terms.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that the first line of 1.1.8 is simply a combination of
>>> 1.1.1 and 1.1.6.  I like having them as separate items rather than a
>>> combination as it makes it easier to test a license for conformance and
>>> easier to be specific on what's wrong in the case of non-conformance.
>>>
>>> I believe the second line of 1.1.8 is new.
>>>
>>> Does this seem correct to others?  Is the first line in fact redundant?
>>>  Is the second new?
>>>
>>> If so, I recommend we remove 1.1.8 and move the new line to the "ideas"
>>> document for later consideration.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Herb
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> * Rufus Pollock Founder and CEO | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
>> <https://twitter.com/rufuspollock> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>> <http://okfn.org/> Empowering through Open Knowledge http://okfn.org/
>> <http://okfn.org/> | @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | OKF on Facebook
>> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |
>>  Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter> *
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Herb Lainchbury
> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
> www.dynamic-solutions.com
> http://twitter.com/herblainchbury
>

-- 

*Rufus PollockFounder and CEO | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
<https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>The Open Knowledge Foundation
<http://okfn.org/>Empowering through Open Knowledgehttp://okfn.org/
<http://okfn.org/> | @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | OKF on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>  |
 Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140401/e35f1e54/attachment-0002.html>