[Open-data-census] [od-discuss] [CLARIFICATION REQUIRED] Can PSI Licence be considered an "open" license?

[Andrew Stott]

I read this as the Licensor (the data owner) being able to charge for
the use of data *under this licence*.  That would not be Open.

In dual-licensing cases each licence does not normally mention the
other.  I suppose each licence could say that the Licensor reserves
the right to license the work under a different licence to other
parties, but that is not what is being said here.


On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 6.1(1)(b) (which allows the Licensor to charge, for goodness sake)
>
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something (it is late here) but Licensors are always
> allowed to charge, either as parallel distribution/dual-licensing (since
> they are the Licensor/author), or simply as a condition of the initial
> distribution, no?
>
> Relevant OKD section: "The license shall not restrict any party from
> *selling* or giving away the work".
>
> Luis