[okd-discuss] Re: RFC: Open Knowledge Definition v0.1

[Rufus Pollock]

BTW cc'ing the (new) okd-discuss list on this so that this stuff goes 
public and is archived. I hope that is ok (if not let me know).

Cory Doctorow wrote:
[snip]
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Open Knowledge Definition
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Summary
>> *******
>>
>> A work is **open** if it is accessible, reproducible and re-usable  
>> without legal, social or technological restriction.
> 
> 
> I think you'll get a fair bit of nits picked over whether  "restriction" 
> is synonymous with "hurdle" (e.g., a PDF can be freely  reverse 
> engineered and a PDF reader that will convert to editable  format can be 
> made without breaking the law, but does that mean a PDF  is as "open" as 
> an html doc?)

Good point. Clearly HTML is /more/ open but PDF does have a published 
standard (i think) that is implementable w/o fee (is it?). See more 
comments below in the Technological Restriction item.

[snip]

>>
>> 1. Redistribution
>> =================
>>
>> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving  away 
>> the work either on its own or as part of a package made from  works 
>> from many different sources. The license shall not require a  royalty 
>> or other fee for such sale or distribution.
> 
> 
> Does that mean that all CC noncommercial/devnat licensed material is  
> not "open"? It's not "closed" in the same way that proprietary  material 
> is, so is there some way that this gradation can be  acknowledged here.

Yes this is an important point to my mind. CC NC/devnat are not fully 
'open'.  While obviously i still think they are a great thing compared 
to more restrictive alternatives i think they are more 'consumer' rather 
than 'commons' licenses. It has been a major point for open source that 
I did in fact draft an additional item which is not included in the 
definition to address precisely this issue which dealt with this:

Definition of Weak Openness
===========================

A work may be considered **weakly** open or conform to the Weak Open 
Knowledge Definition if it conforms to the above terms but the words 
'non-commercial' are everywhere inserted with respect to use and re-use.

However i think this would need branding better!

>>
>> 2. Re-Use
>> =========
>>
>> The license must allow for modifications and derivative works and  
>> must allow them to be distributed under the terms of the original  
>> software.
>>
>>   Comment: Note that this clause does not prevent the use of  'viral' 
>> or share-alike licenses that require redistribution of  modifications 
>> under the same terms as the original.
>>
>> 3. Absence of Technological Restriction
>> =======================================
>>
>> The work must be provided in such a form that there are no  
>> technological obstacles to the performance of the above activities.  
>> This can be achieved by the provision of the work in an open data  
>> format, i.e. one which places no restrictions monetary or otherwise  
>> upon its users. [[ed: think this is too cumbersome + getting in to  
>> definition of open format]]
> 
> 
> See comments regarding PDF, above: is an obscure, non-editable, but  
> "open" format really open?

As i said I am totally with you here on dislike of PDF which is 
explicitly used by people as a kind of obfuscation and I'd be interested 
in language here (or in social openness) which emphasized provision in 
say the /most/ open format etc. Frankly i classify PDF as semi-open, see 
http://www.okfn.org/iai/wiki/FormatRegistry where it denoted as 
Approved/Not Approved (not trying to be indecisive!).

>>
>> 4. Attribution
>> ==============
>>
>> The license may require as a condition for redistribution and re- use 
>> the attribution of the contributors and creators to the work.  If this 
>> condition is imposed it must not be onerous, for example a  list of 
>> those requiring attribution should accompany the work.
>>
>> 5. Integrity
>> ============
>>
>> The license may require as a condition for the work being  distributed 
>> in modified form that the resulting work carry a  different name or 
>> version number from the original work.
>>
>> 6. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>> ==============================================
>>
>> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of  
>> persons.
> 
> 
> What about the devnat license?

This would clearly not fall within the terms of the definion as it would 
discriminate. The problem with allowing such provisions is that it both 
fragements the knowledge 'commons' and allows for a myriad of ways to 
get round the spirit of the definition. While I may applaud a devnat 
license once you allow one kind of discrimination by group what is to 
prevent other kinds which are 'bad'.

[snip]