[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Herb Lainchbury]

>>[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).

Agreed.


>>[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").

Agreed.


>>[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"...)

Agreed.


>>[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  for the new wording.  It removes the redundancy mentioned by Mike as
well.  In light of Aaron's comments to follow maybe "All permissions
granted by the license must be granted 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.  I think we could lose the world "monitory" since "remuneration"
includes it.  Again to address Aaron's comments an alternative might be "All
permissions granted by the license must be granted free of charge, without
requiring any fee arrangement, royalty, or other compensation or
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).

+1


>> 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"?

Agreed.






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"?
>
>


-- 

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/20140609/e5695ba2/attachment-0003.html>