one plus one
Shared publicly•View activity
View 5 previous comments
- Does that help?Oct 8, 2014
- Thanksbut to me this looks like allowing as well any DRM clauses. Why don't include a statement as clear as the one I quoted?Oct 8, 2014
- Marius: erm how do you read it that way? "The license may prohibit distribution of the work in a manner where technical measures impose restrictions on the exercise of otherwise allowed rights."
That's pretty clear: it allows licenses to prohibit DRM stuff - not to allow it. "[Open] Licenses may prohibit .... technical measures ..."Oct 8, 2014
- Yes, "may" not "must", that is the problem. This definition allows so called open data with DRM topping on it. Still waiting for an answer to the question I asked: why do you think about the explicit text quote I mentioned? Repeating it here: "You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material." [source CC 4.0 licence: in Section 2/Scope/a. Licence grant/5]Oct 8, 2014
- Marius: so are you saying your unhappy because the Definition fails to require that all "open licenses" explicitly prohibit DRM? That would seem a bit of a strong thing to require - its one thing to allow people to do that but its another to require it in every license. Remember the Definition is not a license but a set of principles (a standard if you like) that open works (data, content etc) and open licenses for data and content must conform to.Oct 9, 2014
- Rufus, I don't like this definition of open because I believe it is void of content: can't be open with locks on it. No baby talk can convince me of the contrary, but arguments can, if there are any. The same question you ask can be reformulated for any of the places where you use "must".
I have no horse in this race, because I'm more in the OA than in open data, so there may be subtleties which escape me, like for example why exactly not any CC license is good for open data. I ask this only by curiosity. The gist of the matter in this exchange is that DRM and future measures, which will surely appear out from the brains of interested parts, are today more important than the copyright. It's the combination of DRM with authority/vanity arguments which will herd the mass of research authors into the arms of publishers. Once there, the authors will pay the publisher for nothing but vanity points, and they (the authors) will still believe that their data is open.Oct 9, 2014
Add a comment...