[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 final draft
Herb Lainchbury
herb at dynamic-solutions.com
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>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list