[od-discuss] Restriction of redistribution under OD 2.0

[Aaron Wolf]

As I consider this further, a possible rewording:

"The license may require that distributions of the work remain free of any technical measures that would restrict the exercise of otherwise allowed rights."



On 12/10/2014 12:27 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Important comment I just posted on the thread that shows clearly that we need to rewrite the definition, and potentially other similar clauses need similar consideration:
>
> Mike [Taylor], I see you have recognized a parsing problem, but you have insisted on your own reading as the only one. But it is indeed a serious source of error and confusion.
>
> Section 2.2.6 verbatim: "The license may prohibit distribution of the work in a manner where technical measures impose restrictions on the exercise of otherwise allowed rights."
>
> This was written as:
>
> The license may prohibit ( distribution of the work in a manner where technical measures impose restrictions…)
>
> in other words: What may the license prohibit? Distribution with DRM is something it may prohibit.
>
> You read the same text as: The license may (prohibit distribution of the work…)
>
> Which is confusing and contradictory to everything else stated in the definition. Any reasoned debate would recognize your reading as an error, but it is fair to blame it on bad wording that is open to this parsing error. Thus, we must indeed fix the wording so your reading is not possible.
>
> Best,
> Aaron
>
> On 12/09/2014 08:56 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> > 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
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>