[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 final draft

Fri Aug 14 22:05:40 UTC 2015

+1

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
wrote:

> As discussed on call yesterday, I synthesized a non-redundant version of
> these suggestions
>
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/compare/4c1a9b6...b27fe06
>
> I specifically left out "successful" before waiver. It is implicit, and
> if it needs to be explicit, should qualify license application as well.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 07/29/2015 04:34 AM, Andrew Rens wrote:
> > I agree with Aaron's modifications.
> >
> >
> > Rob Myers asked:
> > What about ambiguous public domain status, e.g. US Government work
> > outside the US?
> >
> > Andrew: That is one more problem with the current language of "default
> > legal condition."
> >
> > On the one hand adding a Free/Open license to PD work can be
> > rightswashing.
> >
> > Andrew: but making a new work with a PD work and adding Free/Open
> > license or even waiver is not.
> >
> > On the other it can avoid the complexities of copyright law as it
> > impacts the public domain across different jurisdictions.
> >
> > Andrew: yes
> >
> >
> > Andrew Rens
> >
> >
> >
> > On 28 July 2015 at 23:42, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net
> > <mailto:wolftune at riseup.net>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 07/28/2015 11:36 PM, Andrew Rens wrote:
> >     > Thanks Mike
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >       1.1  specifically "The *work* /must/ be provided
> >     >     > under an open *license"
> >     >     >
> >     >     > *
> >     >     > This seems to preclude knowledge which is open because it is
> >     in the
> >     >     > public domain.
> >     >
> >     >     Explicitly not intended to:
> >     >
> >     > I didn't think it was intended to exclude public domain but that
> >     is does
> >     > not seem clear to me.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     above there reads "The term license refers
> >     >     to the legal conditions under which the work is provided.
> Where no
> >     >     license has been offered the term refers to default legal
> >     conditions
> >     >     governing use of the work (for example, copyright or public
> >     domain)."
> >     >
> >     >     This wording may be improved, conceivably we should use some
> >     other word,
> >     >     and "(as defined in Section 2)" might distract from above
> "refers
> >     >     to...".
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > The phrase "default legal conditions" doesn't seem to cover public
> >     > domain by waiver very easily.  A work released into the public
> domain
> >     > via CC 0 is not in the public domain by default.
> >     > Yes once its in the public domain then it remains there by default
> and
> >     > no further permissions are necessary.
> >     >
> >     > I'd also like to understand what is meant that a work can be open
> >     under
> >     > a default legal condition of copyright.
> >     >
> >     > Most alternative words to use in place of licence seem to have a
> >     similar
> >     > problem; 'permission' and ''terms' both suggest that the public
> domain
> >     > is a special kind of permission rather than the absence of a
> >     requirement
> >     > to get permission. Trying to find a master term for public domain
> and
> >     > licence risks confusion for the extensive reference to
> >     >
> >     > One approach would be to shift the detail on this 1.1
> >     >
> >     > To do this would involve retaining the definition of licence in the
> >     > definitions: "The term *license* refers to the legal conditions
> under
> >     > which the work is provided" but adding a phrase to distinguish
> this from
> >     > works in the public domain: "if the work may be subject to
> copyright or
> >     > database rights".
> >     >
> >     > Then 1.1 could be entitled:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >       1.1 Open License /Or Status/
> >     >
> >
> >     I like the "or Status" bit.
> >
> >     > The words "Or Status" indicate that for purposes of 1.1 there are
> two
> >     > possible conditions that make a work open. I do not recommend
> using the
> >     > term status as an term for both license and public domain since
> its not
> >     > widely used or understood in this way.
> >     >
> >     > The body of 1.1 could then read
> >     >
> >     > "The *work* must be provided under an open *license* (as defined in
> >     > Section 2) or in the public domain. A work may be in the public
> domain
> >     > by default or because is has been released into the public domain
> by a
> >     > successful waiver of all copyright and database rights. Any
> additional
> >     > terms accompanying the work (such as a terms of use, or patents
> held by
> >     > the licensor) must not contradict the terms of the license."
> >     >
> >
> >     I suggest slight modification:
> >
> >     "The *work* must be provided under an open *license* (as defined in
> >     Section 2) or be in the public domain with no extra limitations. A
> work
> >     may be in the public domain by default or released into the public
> >     domain by a successful waiver of all copyright and database rights.
> Any
> >     additional terms accompanying the work (such as terms of use, or
> patents
> >     held by a licensor) must not contradict the terms of the license or
> the
> >     public domain status."
> >
> >
> >     >
> >     > Andrew
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     _______________________________________________
> >     >     od-discuss mailing list
> >     >     od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> >     <mailto: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
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > 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
> >     >
> >
> >     --
> >     Aaron Wolf
> >     co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
> >     music teacher, wolftune.com <http://wolftune.com>
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

-- 

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/20150814/341bd0d6/attachment-0003.html>