gmane.org.misc.open-knowledge-foundation.general

Re: possible OKD conformant licence: The MirOS Licence

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Jonathan Gray <j.gray@...> wrote:
> Welcome to the list Patrick!

Thanks.

>
> The GPL/AGPL aren't included because they are covered by the open
> source/free software definitions.

Does this mean all licenses covered by those definitions are
automatically INCLUDED, or that they are automatically EXCLUDED?

>The OKD focuses on knowledge - which
> includes content and data.

Yes, luckily I understand that much ;)

I should have been more explicit.  I am talking about applying the GNU
[A]GPL to data.  This is already done to a small degree.

For instance, I follow the development of many Free Software games,
and know that some of the groups are moving from the CC licenses to
the GPL for the artwork (3D models, sprites, textures, etc.) because
it just makes things easier to use a GPL compatible license, and the
GPL protects the community from those that would otherwise make that
code or data proprietary.

Some wikis use the GPL for the 'content'.  i.e.: http://EmacsWiki.org

Even a small amount of music and video is available under the GPL.

(Continue reading)

headers

Thorsten Glaser | 7 Jul 16:36

software licences for data? (was Re: possible OKD conformant licence: The MirOS Licence)

Note: I changed the title as this has nothing to do with the MirOS
Licence any more. The latter was specifically drafted to *not* be
a software(-only) licence, as I had artwork, multimedia, documenta-
tion, etc. (fonts aren't copyrightable in Germany) in mind in the
first place.

Patrick Anderson dixit:

>> The GPL/AGPL aren't included because they are covered by the open
>> source/free software definitions.
>
>Does this mean all licenses covered by those definitions are
>automatically INCLUDED, or that they are automatically EXCLUDED?

They are automatically excluded, as they don't match the definition.
This goes along with FSF recommendations to use specially-crafted
documentation licences.

>For instance, I follow the development of many Free Software games,
>and know that some of the groups are moving from the CC licenses to
>the GPL for the artwork (3D models, sprites, textures, etc.) because
>it just makes things easier to use a GPL compatible license,
> [ copyleft FUD stripped ]

Using the GNU GPL for non-software is possible, but only to a limited
amount. This works best for e.g. manuals that are partially created
from the programme in question, or vice versa.

>Even a small amount of music and video is available under the GPL.

(Continue reading)

headers

Rufus Pollock | 8 Jul 12:04

Re: possible OKD conformant licence: The MirOS Licence

On 07/07/08 15:15, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Jonathan Gray <j.gray@...> wrote:
>> Welcome to the list Patrick!
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> The GPL/AGPL aren't included because they are covered by the open
>> source/free software definitions.
> 
> Does this mean all licenses covered by those definitions are
> automatically INCLUDED, or that they are automatically EXCLUDED?

To my mind they would be automatically *included*, i.e. any licence 
compliant with the Open Source Definition would be compliant with the 
Open Knowledge Definition. However, I note that

a) I am not absolutely certain of this. There might be edge cases where 
  there would be a difference (e.g. I do not know what the deal would be 
under the OSD if you distributed code that was openly licensed but the 
documentation (or artwork) distributed with the code was not openly 
licensed -- under the OKD this would clearly not be an open 'work').

b) Importantly the OKD talks about works as primary and licenses as 
secondary. Specifically it states [1]

"A work is open if its manner of distribution satisfies the following 
conditions:"

These conditions extend beyond specific requirements on the licence 
specifically item 1 (Access) mandates that the work must be made

(Continue reading)

headers

Thorsten Glaser | 8 Jul 16:22

Re: possible OKD conformant licence: The MirOS Licence

Rufus Pollock dixit:

>b) Importantly the OKD talks about works as primary and licenses as 
>secondary. Specifically it states [1]
>
>"A work is open if its manner of distribution satisfies the following 
>conditions:"
>
>These conditions extend beyond specific requirements on the licence 

There is a real-world difference:

I can produce software under the BSD/MIT/MirOS/X11/… licence, distri-
bute it and not give source code away. The work would still be “OSI
approved Open Source Software“ since it is covered by that licence,
people just do not have access to the source (possibly, to prevent
OSI from bitching about it, I give tapes of the software away for
US$ 1000, like the University of California did with early BSD ver-
sions… of course, I then cannot prevent recipients from sharing, but
that’d make them lose their fiscal investition ☺).

bye,
//mirabilos
--

-- 
Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font.	-- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"

_______________________________________________

(Continue reading)

headers

Patrick Anderson | 8 Jul 18:49

Re: possible OKD conformant licence: The MirOS Licence

> b) Importantly the OKD talks about works as primary and licenses as
> secondary.

I'm confused by this idea.

Are you saying the work itself can determine whether or not it is open?

Isn't it the license or licenses that determine that?

Am I misreading your intent?

Could you give me an example of a work that uses an 'open' license, or
is in the Public Domain, but still does not meet the OKD because of
something specific to that work?

Or is there an example of a work under a 'closed' license that still
meets the OKD?

> These conditions extend beyond specific requirements on the licence

How could that be?  What would cause an end-user to add these extra
requirements?

Maybe you are saying the OKD is about how each instance of a work is
'handled' or 'hosted' by a user, and not about the constraints
enforced by the licensing over all instances?

If that is the case, I would like to talk more about this.

> specifically item 1 (Access) mandates that the work must be made available

(Continue reading)

headers

Rufus Pollock | 8 Jul 20:46

Re: possible OKD conformant licence: The MirOS Licence

On 08/07/08 17:49, Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> b) Importantly the OKD talks about works as primary and licenses as
>> secondary.
> 
> I'm confused by this idea.
> 
> Are you saying the work itself can determine whether or not it is open?

Not sure what you mean here? The relevant statement was:

"A work is open if its *manner of distribution* satisfies the following 
conditions" (emphasis added)

It is not the work that determines anything but the manner of its 
distribution.

> Isn't it the license or licenses that determine that?
> 
> Am I misreading your intent?
> 
> Could you give me an example of a work that uses an 'open' license, or
> is in the Public Domain, but still does not meet the OKD because of
> something specific to that work?

Yes quite easily. Take a painting or a score that is very old (and in 
the public domain) but to which access is denied (or to which access is 
only given under the condition that you don't photograph it etc).

> Or is there an example of a work under a 'closed' license that still
> meets the OKD?

(Continue reading)