[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Wed Jul 30 06:59:29 UTC 2014

On 07/30/2014 02:36 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> 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.
>

Well, I don't see where UK-OGL forbids me from using it, or forcing me
to use another explicit license. Could you please tell where does it
specifically forbid it?

I agree with your reading if it means it's odd when others reuse it, but
I think you can without breaking its terms. For example, you can say:
"I am not UK Government and have no relation to it. This document
contains public sector information licensed under the OGL v2.0, and you
are bound by its terms."

You didn't add another license of your own. What license are your
modifications/additions under? I think the same set of permissions and
conditions as UK-OGL, interpreted in a way that excludes any relation
with the original licensor.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't claim it's a brilliant idea to do
this. But I don't see where you're breaking its terms.

On 07/30/2014 03:44 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Indeed, the change legitimizes non-reusable licenses, but not only
existing ones, also potential, future licenses with /more/ clearly
non-reusable terms than until now.

So I'm wondering if some licenses will have to be considered open with
this change in OD, but they're more restrictive than any open license
before.

Hypothesis:
I buy a book under UK-OGL, and go with a friend to a cafeteria. The book
contains charts. I take a crayon and add more options to some charts, I
draw another chart on a separate blank page, I write a dedication and
give it to them. My friend writes a blog on our discussion, scans the
modified and added pages, and uploads them.

I think UK-OGL doesn't strictly prevent me from doing this. I think I
can always rely on an open license to allow something like this.

At most, my friend should write a disclaimer on their blog, for the
scanned document, but that's a trademark/origin issue, and not more burden.

On the other hand, if the book is under a license that will say:
"you are not allowed to make and share any modifications unless you
license them differently", then it forces me to choose another license.
(in the cafeteria even?)

Just a few more thoughts on this... The change in OD seems to me to open
the door for unreasonable burdens, even if such future licenses didn't
seem strictly non-open otherwise... Unreasonable burdens means that I or
my friend may become copyright infringers for /more/ natural sharing
actions than before.

-- 
"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?"