[od-discuss] v2 - use

[Herb Lainchbury]

Okay, I've incorporated these changes.

H


On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>wrote:

> 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 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140406/274bc766/attachment-0003.html>