[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Tue Jun 10 03:27:59 UTC 2014

I have made most of these edits.  I haven't changed 1.1.8 or 1.1.9 as would
like to hear what others think.

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
wrote:

> >>[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
>

-- 

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/20140609/45ed2356/attachment-0003.html>