[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Mon Jul 28 04:01:37 UTC 2014

On 06/09/2014 03:20 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>
> * 1.1.3 "/must/ allow the derivatives to be distributed under the terms
> of the original licensed work" I know this has been around forever, but
> I don't know that there's a principled reason for it. The crucial thing
> is that derivatives can be distributed under open terms. Why mandate
> same terms?
>

Just checking I understand this correctly. I think 1.1.3 doesn't 
actually mandate same terms. It merely /allows/ to be distributed under 
the terms I received the original. It mandates that the license allows 
me (doesn't forbid me) to simply transmit my adaptation over without 
changing the license at all. I can change it (for some cases) but 1.1.3 
says I don't /have to/. [1]

"/must/ not forbid the derivatives to be distributed under the terms of 
the original licensed work"

The consequence of changing this would be:

"/may/ forbid the derivatives to be distributed under the terms of the 
original licensed work, but /must/ allow their distribution under open 
terms".

Such a license would break the principle of least surprise... What's 
more, it would prevent the most widespread model of collaboration on a 
project, one based on the license of the project and it alone. For 
example, in writing communities where people collaborate on the text, 
they would be /forced/ to make their corrections or reformulations 
(derivatives, likely) under another license than they received. It's not 
clear to me how would a wiki even work naturally.

This sounds to me like a major change from OD 1.1... which is why I'm 
sending this email for you to please consider.

If, OTOH, what you were pondering is that there's no real reason for 
licenses to necessarily "mandate same terms" in order to keep a 
share-alike condition, then perhaps the right target for relaxation of 
"the same" requirement is 2.2.3:
"may require copies or derivatives of a licensed work to remain under 
under a license the same as or similar to the original".

"Similar" is actually a relaxation of the requirement to be "the same" 
terms... It's a vague qualification. I think it can be read in the 
direction currently followed by CC on compatibility (which is a nice 
development IMHO), while "similar" might (or not) cover also different 
implementations of a share-alike mechanism. (such as keeping some, but 
not all, conditions for downstream, so in effect not mandating "the same 
terms")

If 2.2.3 reads "may require [...] to remain under open terms", is it 
better? Assuming open terms are defined accurately and concisely.

[1] I can't tell why exactly do certain non-reusable licenses fare with 
this requirement; maybe because they don't mandate, just make it odd, 
but I think in practice it hasn't been a problem. (that I recall... now 
that I think of it, there's a case of Debian and PHP license, however in 
that case too, Debian let the oddness be)

-- 
"Excuse me, Professor Lessig, may I ask you to sign this CLA, so we can 
*legally* have your permission to distribute your CC-licensed works?"