[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Thu Jul 31 06:39:13 UTC 2014

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

It is titled "Open Government License for public sector information", and
further down it states, "This licence does not grant you any right to use
the Information in a way that suggests any official status".  I think if I
were to publish my work under a license with that title, it would suggest
some official status.

It may be correct that I could indeed use this license for my work, by
claiming I'm not the government, but I wouldn't do that.  In effect this
license is non-reusable to me as a data publisher, so I would look for one
I could use.

Should publishers be required to make their licenses re-usable in order to
be considered open?  I don't think so.

Should a license that explicitly prohibits re-publishing under the same
license terms be considered non-open?  I don't think so.

So long as I can use the data, modify it, and redistribute it using an open
license of my choosing, I would say it satisfies the Modification
requirement of the definition.

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Non-reusable open licenses exist now.  As far as I can see this change does
not legitimize them, they are already legitimate.

Maybe there are examples that would help.

Can we come up with an example of a license we would currently consider
non-open that this proposed change would make us consider open (i.e.
legitimize)?

Herb

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Engel Nyst <engel.nyst at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?"
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140730/0385836b/attachment-0003.html>