Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list

Rob Myers | 13 Jan 15:50

Re: OK Definition is flawed by imposing restrictions

D.B. Free wrote:

> This is clearly a restriction of knowledge and information, since by
> definition any terms are a limitation.

What if the term was "you may do anything with this work"? Would that 
"by definition" be a limitation?

It would not. Your premise is therefore false.

What if the term was "you may restrict use of this knowledge by whoever 
you wish"? Would that "by definition" be a limitation?

It would not be a limitation by your definition, but it will lead to far 
more restriction and limitation of people's ability to actually use the 
knowledge or imformation than a "restriction" that would prevent this.

Your premise is therefore self-defeating in practice.

> There are numerous examples, but the the root problem is that all
> prohibitions contradict the basic definition  "A piece of knowledge is
> open if you are free to use, reuse, and redistribute it."

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.

(Continue reading)

headers

Rufus Pollock | 14 Jan 12:04

Re: OK Definition is flawed by imposing restrictions

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.
>

(Continue reading)

headers

rob | 14 Jan 12:34

Re: OK Definition is flawed by imposing restrictions

Quoting Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@...>:
> Rob Myers wrote:
>> 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?

OpenStreetMap and Wikipedia are very successful projects with many  
contributors. Each of those contributors must be given attribution  
under the licences that OSM (BY-SA) and Wikipedia (FDL) use. Since a  
town map from OSM or a detailed article on a popular subject from  
Wikipedia may have dozens of contributors, attributing them all  
individually can become a burden.

OSM in particular are discussing how to better handle attribution.

BY-SA 2 introduced group attribution and the ability to separate  
attribution from the work (if this is done for *every* author: I can't  
put my name on the cover then relegate others to a web page somewhere)  
IIRC. Copyright assignment or agreeing to allow indirect attribution  
as a condition for contributing might also work.

>> 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.

(Continue reading)