[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Tue Jun 10 02:29:54 UTC 2014

> 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".

+1

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca> wrote:

>  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
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>

-- 

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/a03a05ee/attachment-0003.html>