[od-discuss] Restriction of redistribution under OD 2.0

Wed Dec 10 04:56:12 UTC 2014

Exactly.

The simplest point is:

The clause says conclusively "anti-DRM clauses do not disqualify
something from being Open."

Now *that* bit I just wrote is much more readable, so if we can approach
that level of clarity in the OD, we should try…

Perhaps instead of saying "the license may …" we should use my wording
from just now and say "this sort of clause doesn't disqualify something
from being Open". That gets more to the heart of the matter. No, these
clauses don't make it non-Open. Period.

Cheers,
Aaron

On 12/09/2014 08:50 PM, Tomoaki Watanabe wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification. The current text
> makes sense upon re-reading..
> 
> I think the prohibition of this type of DRM/ TPM is a somewhat
> controversial thing. CC license has such term, and there was
> at some point a discussion if that disqualifies some CC licenses
> from meeting debian's idea of free software. See, for example,
> the following.
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2012-January/006582.html
> 
> In other word, some people thinks anti-DRM clause is problematic
> to the extent that having such clause disqualifies a license
> from being an open license, roughly speaking. (Debian's guideline
> is not about license, but about software works under the
> license, more strictly speaking).
> 
> So it makes sense that the current guideline does not say
> "must" but says "may" in the clause of Open Definition.
> Some argue such anti-DRM provision should not be allowed
> (must not).
> 
> Best,
> 
> Tomo
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Tomoaki Watanabe
> <tomoaki.watanabe at gmail.com> 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
> 