[okfn-discuss] OK Definition is flawed by imposing restrictions

Mon Jan 14 11:04:35 UTC 2008

Dear Rob,

Thanks for responding so admirably to D.B. Free's email. I think the key 
point here is that the Definition does allow certain very specific 
'restrictions' on one's 'freedom' to use, reuse and redistribute such 
information most specifically in terms of allowing attribution and 
sharealike provisions. Anyway I just want to ask you for further 
clarification on a couple of minor points you brought up:

Rob Myers wrote:
> D.B. Free wrote:

[snip]

> Attribution does not prevent the use re-use or distribution of knowledge 
> and is allowed by the vast majority of extant "Free Software", "Free 
> Culture" and "Free Data" licences.
> 
> I am aware of the Wikipedia and OSM attribution problems. These are a 
> failures of planning by otherwise excellent projects, not a deep problem 
> with attribution.

I must confess I am not as knowledgeable as yourself as to what these 
current problems are. Would you mind providing some further information? 
Is it that attribution is required to each individual contributor?

>> Any limits on the use, reuse, changes, etc. is a restriction on the
>> freedom to use that knowledge, and so is contrary to the idea of open
>> knowledge.
> 
> There is a difference between "open" and "restrictable" in much the same 
> way that there is a difference between "free" and "enslaveable".

Quite!

> The OKD's failure to ensure that knowledge is restrictable is not a 
> flaw. Its acknowledgement of licences that make knowledge restrictable 
> is a flaw from my point of view, but I think it's a reasonable compromise.

What "acknowledgment of licences" did you have in mind here? I'd be very 
interested to have your comments in this regard as well as any 
suggestions for how things could be 'fixed' if there is something that 
isn't right.

~rufus