[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 final draft
Aaron Wolf
wolftune at riseup.net
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
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list