[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 final draft

[Andrew Rens]

Hi

Like Rufus I must offer apologies for not having more to say on this
definition earlier on.

I have a concern with 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.
Knowledge may be in the public domain because it does not meet the
requirements for either copyright or database protection for example
federal weather data is in the public domain in the United States or
because it was under copyright or database protection but the term has
expired or because it has been placed in the public domain by the rights
holder using a waiver such as Creative Commons 0.

While Creative Commons 0 and indeed the ODC PDDL include residuary licences
in many jurisdictions they do operate as waivers of all rights and are thus
not as a matter of law licences. This is one reason the PDDL is termed the
Public Domain Dedication and License.

To keep the distinction clear I suggest that the public domain issue be
dealt with in 1 rather than 2 which is confined to licences.

Suggested wording is in italics

1.1 Open License

The *work* *must* be *in the public domain or* provided under an open
*license* (as defined in Section 2). 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. *A work is released into the public
domain by a successful waiver of all copyright and database rights.*


Andrew


Andrew Rens



On 17 July 2015 at 14:30, Herb Lainchbury <herb.lainchbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> After further discussion, consideration and much input from various people
> in the community I think we're ready to consider the current Open
> Definition draft 2.1 dev for acceptance.
>
> You can find the current draft 2.1 dev version here:
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-
> 2.1-dev.markdown
>
> The actual diff can be viewed here: http://git.io/vm6W8
> (note: this diff includes all changes to the repository so use the "Files
> Changed" tab to see just the changes to the
> "source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown" file.
>
> The main discussions centred around the preamble as well as clauses 1.3,
> 2.2.3, 2.2.5 and 2.2.6.
>
> Most of the issues addressed are also documented here:
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=label%3A2.1
>
>
> Please pay particular attention to 1.3 in your review as that clause was
> one of the main reasons for this update and we want to ensure it is as good
> as we can make it.  See discussions here
> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-November/thread.html>
> and here
> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-November/thread.html>
> and here <https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/68>.
>
> An attribution clause has also been added to the definition to recognize
> the work the definition is based on.
>
>
> Please submit any further comments on the od-discuss list.
>
> Please take this opportunity to raise any final objections to voting on
> final acceptance of this draft.  If no objections are received I will call
> for a vote in approximately one week.
>
>
> Please disseminate this note further as you see fit and if you know of
> another list that we should notify, please let me know.
>
> Thank you,
> Herb Lainchbury
> Chair, Open Definition Advisory Council
>
> ----------
>
> In summary, the changes from 2.0 to the current 2.1dev are:
>
> Preamble
>
> - reference to OSD changed to wikipedia
>
> - change to summary section to simplify and improve clarity of the term
> **license**
>
> 1.
>
> - fixed formatting typo
>
> 1.2
>
> - from shall to must and from preferable to should
>
> 1.3
>
> - from "or" to "and"
>
> - from "processed" to "fully processed"
>
> - removed bulk suggestion - already covered in 1.2
>
> - added *should* be provided in form preferred for making modifications to
> it
>
> 2.
>
> - added “should be compatible”
>
> - fixed formatting typo
>
> 2.2
>
> - changed shall to must
>
> 2.2.1
>
> - added missing comma
>
> 2.2.3
>
> -The **license** *may* require copies or derivatives of a licensed work to
> remain under a license the same as or similar to the original.
>
> +The **license** *may* require distributions of the work to remain under
> the same license or a similar license.
>
> 2.2.5
>
> -The **license** *may* require modified works to be made available in a
> form preferred for further modification.
>
> +The **license** *may* require that anyone distributing the work provide
> recipients with access to the preferred form for making modifications.
>
> 2.2.6
>
> -The **license** *may* prohibit distribution of the work in a manner where
> technical measures impose restrictions on the exercise of otherwise allowed
> rights.
>
> +The **license** *may* require that distributions of the work remain free
> of any technical measures that would restrict the exercise of otherwise
> allowed rights.
>
>
> Attribution
> +The Open Definition was initially derived from the Open Source
> Definition, which in turn was derived from the original Debian Free
> Software Guidelines, and the Debian Social Contract of which they are a
> part, which were created by Bruce Perens and the Debian Developers. Bruce
> later used the same text in creating the Open Source Definition. This
> definition is substantially derivative of those documents and retains their
> essential principles. Richard Stallman was the first to push the ideals of
> software freedom which we continue.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Herb
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150728/da44ee3f/attachment-0003.html>