[od-discuss] Open Definition Telecon 15:00 UTC Thursday?2014-06-12

Thu Jun 12 10:07:21 UTC 2014

Same here, I am in meetings. Sorry!
Daniel

--
Daniel Dietrich, co-founder & chairman
Open Knowledge Foundation Germany
www.okfn.de | info at okfn.de | @okfde 
Office: +49 30 57703666 0 | Fax: - 9
Mobile: +49 176 32768530 

Singerstr. 109, 10179 Berlin
http://goo.gl/maps/J4n0U

Empowering people through open knowledge!
Support us: http://okfn.de/support/

On 12.06.2014, at 12:06, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com> wrote:

> Mike
> 
> My apologies but I will almost certainly not be able to join the call this
> afternoon.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Andrew
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: od-discuss [mailto:od-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of
> Mike Linksvayer
> Sent: 08 June 2014 21:41
> To: Herb Lainchbury
> Cc: od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [od-discuss] Open Definition Telecon 15:00 UTC Thursday
> 2014-06-12
> 
> I added one thing to the agenda, a proposed update of approval process,
> which results in updated license categories, both of which stem from moving
> some bits intended to address interoperability out of the 2.0 draft.
> Changes/explanation in
> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-April/000841.html
> 
> There's one part of Andrew Katz's
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/pull/39 I wanted to point out before
> the call:
> 
>    + The conditions *must* not seek to derogate from rights such as fair
> use and fair dealing, or from uses for which no licence is required at law.
> 
> I'm not sure this is a good addition. I think we've discussed this before,
> but not sure if it was on-list or -call, and can't find now:
> what matters for "open", the lack of certain restrictions, or their source?
> If the former, it shouldn't matter whether a restriction exists because a
> license adds them (or tries to), or they exist by default. I tend to think
> the source shouldn't matter: a "license" can try to "impose" conditions by
> "contract" and still be "open" so long as those conditions are permissible
> restrictions, nevermind what users may or may not be free to do in various
> jurisdictions.
> 
> But, if we do go ahead with this addition , we need to take it seriously and
> either move ODbL to non-open status or somehow come to the conclusion that
> its attempted contractual layer is totally ineffective (which I'm happy to
> believe) and state that in explanation of how it complies.
> 
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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