[od-discuss] Restriction of redistribution under OD 2.0
ml at gondwanaland.com
Wed Dec 10 04:43:24 UTC 2014
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> I have just seen the following correspondence
> which concludes
> Well, that is ridiculous. Then the Open Definition v2.0 is useless.
> Completely useless.
> Was v1.0 the same?
> and rather than reply to it myself I thought that I would get an
> authoritative opinion.
I left the following comment, in moderation (:
OD 2.0 section 2 pertains to the license. A compliant license may prohibit
DRM. A must here would mean an unconditional license or public domain would
OD 2.0 section 1 pertains to the work. 1.3 says "The work must be provided
in a convenient and modifiable form such that there are no unnecessary
technological obstacles to the performance of the licensed rights."
A work with DRM applied to it is not an OD compliant work whether the
work's license prohibits DRM or not.
I can't tell where "here in the comments" is intended to link to above, but
if similar misreadings of the Open Definition are occurring elsewhere, I'd
love to see them corrected, and to get suggestions as to make the OD easier
to read and understand correctly.
See http://opendefinition.org/od/ for the current version and feel free to
file issues at https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues
> [Background - the context is Nature's new effort in bringing out DRM'ed
> (or TPM'ed) scientific publications. The actual materialt is not Open, so
> that's not the point - it is that knowlegeable people can interpret OD as
> allowing DRM.
I've only followed this closely enough to wonder -- does whatever ReadCube
does constitute an "effective technical measure"?
Tomo: Hopefully it is clear now that the current wording is correct.
However, it probably could be more clear.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the od-discuss