[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Wed Jul 30 18:36:35 UTC 2014

Just to follow up on Mike, Engel and Aaron's sub-thread about the clause
that is currently numbered 2.1.3:

2.1.3 Modification
The license must allow the creation of derivatives of the licensed work and
allow the distribution of such derivatives under the same terms of the
original licensed work.

I think the point is that it is desirable (more open) for downstream users
to be free to use the same specific license as well as other licenses.

However, there are some instances where I think I am prevented from reusing
a license.

Take the UK-OGL for example.
If I download a dataset, modify it and re-distribute it, I don't think I am
free to use the UK-OGL for my derivative.  It's specifically for public
sector information providers.  I would need to choose another license for
my derivative.

I think Engel's concern about the Wiki is valid, and such a license would
be a poor choice for a wiki, but I'm not sure it's not open if I am still
free to use the information and redistribute it under open terms.

I think Mike's suggestion to relax the text is a good one, and we don't
need to force publishers to allow others to use their specific license.

I may be missing something here, but that's how I see it right now.

Herb

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

> Engel, your comment was hard to parse as you had multiple clauses some you
> were proposing as equivalent, others as opposite, some as acceptable, and
> others not. It wasn't marked clearly.
>
> I *think* I got your point though. I think either "must allow" or "must
> not forbid" are both fine but "must allow" is the clearer.
>
> I think your interp is fine. The original clause merely blocks anything
> that would mandate a change of terms for derivatives. Derivatives must be
> allowed to have the same terms as the original (although the license could
> also be changed if the original license otherwise allows that).
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf
> wolftune.com
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140730/15f80fc3/attachment-0003.html>