[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 final draft

Wed Jul 29 03:42:20 UTC 2015

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>
>     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