[od-discuss] Restriction of redistribution under OD 2.0

[Aaron Wolf]

This is just a total misunderstanding. I posted a reply to the thread,
but it doesn't seem to be showing up right away.

Tom, you are mistaken as well.

2.2.6 says: you can have a license with terms like "any derivates you
publish cannot have any DRM put on them!" but you don't *have* to have
such a license.

To be Open, you do not NEED a license that prohibits DRM, you just need
to not have any DRM.

Again: Open works NEVER have DRM. If there's DRM, it is NOT Open,
because of section 1.3

But, *some* licenses *allow* people to later add DRM. If they do so, the
new DRM'ed version is no longer Open under section 1.3, but the
possibility of making non-Open derivatives doesn't make the original
non-Open.

In other cases, a license *prohibits* DRM forever. Those licenses are
also Open. The license *may* make such prohibitions.

A work is not Open or non-Open purely because of the license. The
license is just one item. Section 2.2.6 says that it is *ok* to ban DRM
forever. It does not change the fact that to be Open there must be no
DRM. A license that fails to ban DRM is one that is a "pushover" as
Richard Stallman would say. It allows the currently Open work to become
non-Open.

The Nature release is non-Open to start with, because it doesn't meet
the definition. It's easy to verify that.

I will say this: the parsing of 2.2.6 is a little tough and could be
improved.

Cheers,
Aaron

On 12/09/2014 08:25 PM, Tomoaki Watanabe wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>