[OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Rob Myers]

On 11/12/10 12:10, Simon Ward wrote:
>
> You think:
>
> OSM should not be limited by an external definition.
>
> OKD is one such external definition, but you do not find it limiting,
>
> You think the OKD is excellent (independently of whether it would be a
> good idea for OSMF to reference it).
>
> I can’t quite put that together logically to form a conclusion,  but I
> think it’s inferred that, despite *you* not finding the OKD limiting,
> you feel that OSM would be limited by it.  So I have to ask, is that
> correct?

I feel that debate would be limited by it being privileged in that way. 
This is, as I explained, independent of my opinion of the OKD.

> I think the OKD is a good way of defining “free and open”, which is
> currently left undefined and open to interpretation.
 >
> Because I’m a free software advocate, I quite understand the mindset
> that when “free software” (or “open source software”) is mentioned it is
> always meant in the sense of the Free Software Definition (or Open
> Source Definition).  In the real world “free software” gets
> mis‐interpreted as “free of charge software” (and people have been known
> to produce “open source” software where source code is available but you
> can’t do anything with it).
>
> If I am right that the intention is that the “free and open” is meant in
> a similar sense, then I do not see why defining it against the OKD is
> limiting to OSM.

And if the sense is familiar I don't see why further definition is 
needed. ;-)

> If I am wrong, I’m afraid that some of the conspiracy theories floating
> around that people are attempting to subvert OSM by putting big
> loopholes in the terms may be true.  I agree to the CTs even less so
> than I did previously.

Fear, uncertainty and what?

> If there is something wrong with applying the OKD to OSM, then I
> wouldn’t mind hearing it. Possibly there are flaws in the definition and
> it could be improved, or OSM could use it to write a different
> definition, although I would strongly prefer not to do
> this—fragmentention between free software and open source software, and
> in the licensing, hasn’t done free software and open source software
> many, if any, favours.

My argument is above this level, on the level of whether *a* definition 
should be chosen, not whether *this* definition should.

- Rob.