[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 final draft

Tue Jul 28 21:25:05 UTC 2015

On 07/28/2015 05:20 PM, Andrew Rens wrote:
> 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.

This is so tough, but there's insanity here. In Norway, they passed a
law saying that if there's no copyright holder to get a license from,
you have to pay some tax to the state because we can't have it where you
just use things freely! So public domain is actually non-open in
Norway!! WTF

> 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.
> 

I agree overall that we should say "open license or public domain"
Thanks for pointing this out.

> 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./
> 

Aside from my concern about Norway above (I don't know what to do there,
besides complain and change the law), I think this wording is excellent.

Herb, Mike, everyone… let's use that wording ^

Aaron

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

-- 
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
music teacher, wolftune.com