[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 final draft

[Andrew Rens]

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> 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>
> >     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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150729/a5cc2fb0/attachment-0003.html>