[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Aaron Wolf]

Love the positive spin, but "grant permissions" validates the concept of
permissions here. There's a reasonable view that the default of no-license
*should* be unlimited use / sharing / modification etc. (despite today's
atrocious laws), and so it shouldn't be up to licenses to grant
permissions, it's just a matter of assuring that they don't impose
prohibitions.

I don't have a perfect solution here.

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com


On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca> wrote:

>  This is shaping up really well.  Some change suggestions, many of them
> nit-picky:
>
> >[1.1.2] ...or as part of a collection made from works from many different
> sources.
> I suggest striking "many", as it need not be many sources (OSI uses
> "several", but it could be only two).
>
> >[1.1.4] ...should have the same rights as those that are granted in
> conjunction with the original package
> Suggest: "should have the same rights as those granted with the original
> work."  Mainly just trying to reduce the wordiness here, and sticking with
> "work" is probably clearer than moving to "package" (as the bespoke "part"
> may not necessarily be from a "package").
>
> >[1.1.7] ...without the need for execution of an additional license...
> I think this should change to "without the need to agree to any additional
> legal terms".  It normally wouldn't be execution of an additional
> *license*, but rather additional contractual terms (though I do see that
> the OSI uses "additional license here"...)
>
> >[1.1.8] The *license* *must* allow use, redistribution, modification and
> compilation, by any person or group of persons, for any purpose. The
> license *must not* restrict anyone from making use of the work in a
> specific field of endeavor.
> Other than the "for any purpose", the first sentence just repeats
> previously states permissions, and the second sentence could be interpreted
> to only apply to simple "use".  How about: "The license must not restrict
> the permissions granted on the basis of any intended use or field of
> endeavour."  Or, keeping with the positive wording, maybe "The license must
> grant all permissions without restriction on any intended uses or fields of
> endeavour."
>
> >[1.1.9] The *license* *must not* impose any fee arrangement, royalty, or
> other compensation or monetary remuneration as part of its conditions.
> I worded as a permission rather than restriction: "The license must grant
> all permissions free of charge, without requiring any fee arrangement,
> royaltly, or other compensation or monetary remuneration"
>
> >[1.2.3] The license may require that copies or adaptations of a licensed
> work...
> This should be "copies or derivatives" for consistency ("adaptation" is a
> copyright term used in Canada, and I think in India and some other
> jurisdictions; "derivative" is more common in most other jurisdictions).
>
> > 2.1 Mandatory Conditions
> Using "Conditions" here is a bit confusing, as we're previously using
> "Condition" to refer license restrictions, but here it refers to positive
> attributes necessary for a work to be open.  Maybe just "2.1 Requirements"?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140609/c6a6eede/attachment-0003.html>