[odc-discuss] Fedora analysis

[Jordan S Hatcher]

On 11 Mar 2009, at 09:46, Rufus Pollock wrote:

>>
>> A broad definition of "use" is fine. What's somewhat confusing here  
>> is
>> that you give an apparently broad definition and then go to the  
>> effort
>> of giving a rather specific and narrow form of modification "use"  
>> that
>> might be understood to imply that broader rights of modification,
>> available under background copyright law, are *not* within the  
>> scope of
>> "use", despite the apparent scope of the first part of the  
>> definition.
>> That is, it's almost like saying "in case you think that the  
>> preceding
>> definition doesn't include any modification rights, in fact it  
>> includes
>> the following particular limited modification right". This naturally
>> leaves the reader wondering whether other forms of modification are
>> somehow excluded from the definition.
>>
>> Note that the same concern was expressed by abunai at
>> http://www.co-ment.net/text/894/ :
>
> I take your point and see how this could be confusing. Let's see if
> this sentence can be deleted.
>
> I would also ask you to take a look at the Public Domain and
> Dedication License (PDDL):
>
> <http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/>


I do see the point about "Use", though I don't think that if this had  
been the final version that it would create as much of a problem  
(i.e., end up restricting the use of the content under the FIL) as has  
perhaps been suggested.

But since we are in a beta, we should keep it as broad as possible and  
redraft.

~Jordan


____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan [at] opencontentlawyer dot com

More details at:
<http://www.jordanhatcher.com>

Open Data at:
<http://www.opendatacommons.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/attachments/20090312/757c32bb/attachment-0002.html>