[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Kent Mewhort]

On 14-06-09 05:24 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 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.
Licenses do have to grant permissions, and they can only impose
prohibitions with respect to the permissions they've already granted.
It's important to note that there're two cases where you can "openly"
use a work: (1) where it's public domain and you don't need a license at
all; and (2) where copyright or other rights apply, but where the author
grants you permissions through a licence.

In the public domain case, where no copyright, database rights, or other
IP rights apply to a work (eg. pure data, non-artistic works, works
without an author, public domain works), you don't need a license
because there's no monopoly on the work. There's no need for an open
license, or a license of any kind.  You always have unlimited use /
sharing / modification etc.

However, for copyrightable works, the state steps in and grants the
author an exclusive monopoly on the work.  By definition of this
exclusivity, others do need permissions in order to copy and otherwise
use the work.  It's only this (very large) category of works that others
need permission to use the work, and this permission is granted through
a license.

It's only this second case that the whole "Open Licenses" section of the
Open Definition comes into play.  The new section on "Open Works" could
apply to public domain works though.  On that note, I wonder if we
should change 2.1.1 to "The work must be available under an open license
or the under public domain".









  2. Works where copyright applies;
  3 Works where copyright, where the author has applied a license.

 

The "default" case, where no copyright



>
> I don't have a perfect solution here.
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf
> wolftune.com <http://wolftune.com/>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20140609/99ef0b2f/attachment-0003.html>