[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.0 - dangling reference to FLOSS

Tue Dec 9 18:05:26 UTC 2014

On 12/09/2014 07:13 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Hi Aaron, all,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:10:58AM -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> First, we've already discussed adapting the particular clause to more
>> strongly require open formats, and I support that change.  But this is
>> a complementary fix.
> 
> I didn't know about it (sorry, I'm an outsider in this community), any
> pointers to past discussions? From the above short comment only, it is
> not entirely clear to me what complementary concern you are talking
> about.

Zack, the detail here was whether we say that "processing with a
Free/Libre/Open software tool" is enough. Because there was a call for
"that's not enough! The format needs to be Open! It's not ok to have
Excel files just because LibreOffice can open them."

So there's discussion about strengthening to require Open formats, period.

> 
>> I support the way we do it at Snowdrift.coop — we do not simply say
>> "under an approved license" but instead say that the software must meet
>> the *definition* of Free Software or Open Source according to FSF or
>> OSI.
> 
> The principle here is absolutely right, and I even agree to the letter
> of it (i.e., either DFSG/OSD or 4 freedoms is fine).
> 
> The problem is that such an approach discriminates users who are not
> knowledgeable in software licensing. Even to licensing experts, it is
> not always entirely clear whether a given license satisfies the
> DFSG/OSD/4 freedoms. That is one of the reasons why we have communities
> like OSI's license-discuss, Debian/'s ftp-masters, or the equivalent
> decision making body within FSF.
> 
> One of the advantages of "authoritative" lists is precisely that: the
> life of users is made easier, they "just" need to check if a given
> license is in one of those lists or not.
> 
> So my fear here is that by going that way you'll make the life of users
> (= readers of the OD in this case) more difficult, actively
> discriminating the non experts. Please also note that my specific
> concerns is about the notion of "open standard". By adopting the
> approach you suggest one will need to be able to determine the freeness
> of a given software license before being able to conclude that a given
> standard is open. Is this a desirable goal here?
> 

I'm not sure, this is an issue for the list to discuss. Indeed, this
Open Knowledge group does determination of licenses meeting the Open
Definition actually. I think it's ok to say (again, as we do at
Snowdrift.coop), "meet the Free Software Definition or Open Source
Definition, including use of licenses approved by the FSF or OSI"

>> That basically means the license, but it emphasizes the definition
>> over the licenses. Note that the GFDL does not meet the definition of
>> Free Software as it is not a software license and the invariant sections
>> violate the 4 freedoms. There is no software that meets the FSF's Free
>> Software Definition that violates the Open Definition.
> 
> Note that the wording I suggested is a one way implication ("is in the
> list -> fine"), rather than an if-and-only-if ("is in the list <->
> fine"). Under such a regime users will be able to make the inference
> that if some standard implementation is under an approved license (no
> matter what license authority you choose) then things are fine w.r.t.
> §1.3. But if that's not the case, that does *not* mean that §1.3 is
> being *necessarily* violated.
> 
> I did so on purpose, following an idea similar to yours that users might
> want to check some authoritative definition of FOSS. But in my mind that
> was only a fallback, in case license lookup in authoritative lists fail.
> 
> Cheers.
> 

Right, so I think to be completely clear, we need to say "software
licenses approved by the FSF or OSI" because neither accept the GFDL as
a *software* license specifically. Open Knowledge does its own work of
determining approved licenses for everything other than software.

Best,
Aaron