[od-discuss] Restriction of redistribution under OD 2.0

Wed Dec 10 04:25:48 UTC 2014

Hi. I am a bit confused, and therefore curious as to
what others have to say on this. (And I am not a part of the authority).

>>2.2.6 Technical Restriction Prohibition
>>The license may prohibit distribution of the work in a manner where technical measures impose restrictions on the exercise of otherwise allowed rights.

Shouldn't this be saying, instead, as follows?

>>2.2.6 Technical Restriction Prohibition
>>The license may prohibit distribution of the work in a manner where technical measures impose *NO* restrictions on the exercise of otherwise allowed rights.

Tomo
 OKJapan/ CCJP/ GLOCOM

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> I have just seen the following correspondence
> http://svpow.com/2014/12/09/on-readcube-and-natures-give-away/#comment-97669
> 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.
>
> [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.
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>