[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Wed Jul 30 19:44:27 UTC 2014

I wasn't going to push for that change though it is theoretically correct,
as Aaron notes, due to the reasons Engel noted and lack of a real license
which allows open derivatives but not under the same license.

(The nearest I could think of was EFF OAL 2.0
http://web.archive.org/web/20040602195332/http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.html
which isn't a full license, but could have been such, and only allow
derivatives under CC-BY-SA-2.0 ... I imagine such a method being a way
other licenses might transition out of existence in the fullness of time.)

But as Herb points out licensor-specific/non-reusable licenses are real
licenses with a sort of implicit allowance for licensing derivatives under
other open licenses but not the same license, if the adapter isn't the
entity intended to use the license.

So I'm +1 on implementing my suggestion. :)

Mike

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to Herb. A work that requires derivatives to use a different license
> (that can still be fully Open) still meets the basic definition even if we
> don't prefer this sort of case.
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf
> wolftune.com
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Herb Lainchbury <
> herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ba167918/attachment-0003.html>