[okd-discuss] Re: RFC: Open Knowledge Definition v0.1
Peter Suber
peters at earlham.edu
Tue Sep 13 17:14:15 UTC 2005
Dear Rufus,
Yes, please feel free to distribute this to the discussion
list. Here are few quick replies. I cluster them here at the top, since
it starts to get hard to follow long emails with many levels of quotation.
1. I think Open Knowledge (OK) should be free of charge. I can see
that the current definition deliberately leaves option of charging for it,
but I still don't see why. Open Access (OA) is free online access to the
basic full-text version of the content, but it's compatible with charging
for access to an enhanced edition of the same content. One example of
charging for OK that you mention below is charging for the "provision of a
warranty regarding accuracy". This could be handled the way OA handles
enhanced content: the basic knowledge ought to be free online, but if
someone wants an edition that's more expensive to produce (such as one
protected by warranty), then it's fine to charge for that.
2. Open Access (OA) does not encourage or require dissemination of
content that authors would rather keep to themselves. It only applies to
content that authors choose to disseminate. OA is based on author consent.
3. You quote (in your Section 2 below) the OA definition from the
Bethesda statement (repeated in the Berlin statement) and call it the BBB
definition. It's not. The Bethesda statement is one of the three that
make up the BBB definition, but the BBB definition consists of the common
ground of the three, not their idiosyncratic features. The points on which
you criticize the Bethesda statement are also points on which I criticize
it; moreover, the OA movement has left those points behind in favor of the
BBB common ground. They're history.
4. You say, "[T]he aim of the OKD is a very narrow one and is
focused on cementing the existing consensus on what is and is not an **open
license** across **diverse** fields (data, content, civic information etc).
It builds on ideas from Open Access (and many other areas) but Open Access
is about far, far more." But this statement doesn't differentiate OK from
OA. OA also applies to data, content, civic information, etc. OA is a
kind of access, not a kind of content. It's compatible with every kind of
digital content.
5. You say below that the Budapest statement is less specific than
the Bethesda or Berlin statements. I'd like to correct this, just for
historical interest. I know it's not relevant to the conversation about
OK. Here's the key section of the Budapest statement: "There are many
degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By "open
access" to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public
internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print,
search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for
indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful
purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those
inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint
on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this
domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work
and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited."
6. Bottom line, I'm not persuaded that OK needs to be different from
OA except by adding modifiability. The common ground of the three BBB
definitions, for example, as I summarize it in my OA Overview
<http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm>, is not confusing and not
different from what you seem to have in mind for OK --except that you want
to permit charging for access to OK content and you want to permit
modifiability. As I've said, I don't see the need to charge for access
except for optional enhancements to the basic content. Modifiability is a
significant difference, which is why I suggested a basic approach of OA
plus modifiability.
I'm worried about open-source people call forking. OA has been
evolving since well before the internet
<http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm> and has significant
momentum and mindshare. I think it would be a lost opportunity to fork
away from it rather than to build on it. I'm encouraged by your response
that you'll try to incorporate my comment into the next draft. I look
forward to it.
Best,
Peter
At 10:10 AM 9/13/2005, Rufus Pollock wrote:
>Dear Peter,
>
>Thanks for you response which I really appreciated as I know how busy you
>must be. Below is a reply to your comments. I hope you will not mind me
>cc'ing the public discuss list on this. The fact that it may be read by a
>more general audience is also why i include below summary info about Open
>Access.
>
>Regards,
>
>Rufus
>
>Peter Suber wrote:
>>Rufus and Co.,
>> Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been swamped.
>> I think the definition would be easier to understand, and stronger,
>> if the access provision called for "open access" plus modifiability.
>
>Good point. I will definitely try and incorporate this in the next draft
>in some way.
>
>>Open access is already well defined in several public statements; I
>>summarize them in my Open Access Overview,
>><http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm>.
>> I say this would be easier to understand because OA is already
>> widely known. I say that it would be stronger because OA requires free
>> online access while the draft definition below does not.
>> This comment would only entail revising Section 0 on access. All
>> of the other sections could remain as they are.
>
>The omission of free online access is intentional. I think this is
>something I should make clearer (and do below) but the main point can be
>summarized as:
>
> Open Access is a policy while the Definition is just a Definition
>
>It is there so if say, you were running 'KnowledgeForge' you could say: we
>will only host projects that have an OKD compatible license or if you were
>running a petition on open geodata you could say we want open geodata
>where that means geodata licensed under an OKD compatible license.
>
>Open Access and the Open Knowledge Definition
>=============================================
>
>There exist obvious commonalities between Open Access and Open Knowledge
>Definition. However there are significant differences that warrant the OKD
>being seperate:
>
>1. The most important difference is that Open Access concerns itself both
>with the license of a work **and** with its being made available. In fact
>in most people mind's this is more important than the licensing terms:
>
> "The best-known part of the BBB definition is that OA content must be
> free of charge for all users with an internet connection."
> [Peter Suber, http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-04.htm]
>
>By contrast the OKD only sets out to set out what an open knowledge
>license must allow. Its aim is to get down core principles as to what make
>knowledge open without discussing in great detail how these obligations
>must be implemented. The distinction can most easily be seen in that the
>statement 'this is an open knowledge project' meaning distributed under
>and open knowledge definition compatible license (just as open source
>means distributed under an open source definition compatible license) is
>distinct from what one would mean by an open access project.
>
>Nothing in the OKD prevents charging for access while it would appear OA
>would (this goes to the 'free' as in 'freedom' vs. 'free' as in 'free
>beer'). Under the OKD you are obliged, should you be requested, to make
>available the work for the cost of distribution but you can charge if you
>want (e.g. for the provision of a warranty regarding accuracy).
>
>Similarly the OKD does not obligate anyone to actually publish or release
>their work. Just as with the Open Source Definition the OKD simply says:
>if you *do* release your work, and you wish it to be 'open' this is what
>you should do. OA does require making available (or at the very least
>emphasizes it heavily). This is not to say that this isn't an excellent
>thing to encourage but it is part of a policy not a license (it makes
>sense to say 'we follow an OA policy' but not to say 'we follow an OKD policy')
>
>2. Details of licensing. The BBB defn of Open Access (see below) states:
>
> 1. The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to
> all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a
> license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly
> and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for
> any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship
> (community standards, will continue to provide the mechanism for
> enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published
> work, as they do now), as well as the right to make small numbers of
> printed copies for their personal use.
>
>This is very similar, but less specific than the OKD. It is also confined
>to activities in a "digital medium", requires a "responsible purpose", and
>implies that you do not have rights to make more than a "small number of
>printed copies for personal use". These are all minor items but, for
>example, a CC Attribution license certainly allows me to redistribute a
>satirical advert for any purpose whatsoever, responsible or not.
>
>In summary the aim of the OKD is a very narrow one and is focused on
>cementing the existing consensus on what is and is not an **open license**
>across **diverse** fields (data, content, civic information etc). It
>builds on ideas from Open Access (and many other areas) but Open Access is
>about far, far more.
>
>What is Open Access?
>====================
>
>Within the OA community it appears that the consensus definition comes
>from the three seperate declarations of Budapest, Betheseda and Berlin
>(the last two being quite similar). For example Peter Suber, one of the
>leaders of the Open Access movement, refers to them as the BBB definition
>of open access in the SPARC OA newsletter of (2004-09-02)
>[http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-04.htm].
>
>The Budapest Open Access Initiative (launched 2002-02-14) is less specific
>than the other two and its main definition of open access reduces to:
>
> "free and unrestricted online availability"
>
>[http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml]
>
>The more lenghty, and precise version comes from the Berlin (2003-10-22)
>and Bethseda (2003-06-20) Declarations (the following is from Berlin which
>differs very slightly from Bethseda):
>
> Open access contributions must satisfy two conditions:
>
> 1. The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s)
> to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a
> license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly
> and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for
> any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship
> (community standards, will continue to provide the mechanism for
> enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published
> work, as they do now), as well as the right to make small numbers of
> printed copies for their personal use.
>
> 2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials,
> including a copy of the permission as stated above, in an appropriate
> standard electronic format is deposited (and thus published) in at least
> one online repository using suitable technical standards (such as the
> Open Archive definitions) that is supported and maintained by an academic
> institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other
> well-established organization that seeks to enable open access,
> unrestricted distribution, inter operability, and long-term archiving.
>
>[*The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and
>Humanities*, released by the Max Planck Society and European Cultural
>Heritage Online.Available at:
> http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html]
>
>The Bethseda statement is, for example, used by PLOS, though it is
>interesting that their concrete license choice is Creative Commons
>Attribution (This PLOS page is the first result on Google for the search
>open access defintion with the Bethseda statement second)
More information about the okfn-discuss
mailing list