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

[Simon Ward]

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:38:22PM +0000, Rob Myers wrote:
> >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.

So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred
from it being open to debate, and that the OKD would limit this)?  I’m
struggling to make sense of this.

I’m probably asking the wrong things, but I’ll try again:

Is “free and open” intended in the sense that you are free to use,
analyse, modify, and redistribute?

If the answer is “no”, what does it mean?

If the answer to the first question is “yes”, does the definition
satisfy the OKD?

In what ways does the OKD limit the debate of “free and open”?

Does the OKD adequately define “free and open”?  Where is it lacking?

I picked out the OKD as a definition that already existed, and in my
eyes defines “free and open” well. Should I have included the Science
Commons protocal for open access too?  Anything else?

> >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. ;-)

I know you put a nice little smiley on the end to make it seem like
you’re just going in circles for fun and having a little dig, but let me
take the bait, I’m hungry, haven’t eaten yet:

Did you read the previous paragraph where I explained by analogy to free
software that the terms are not always interpreted as you might expect?

The sense is familiar to me, but I am also aware of other senses.

I will also add:  When defining free software we refer to the free
software definition.  It does not limit or harm software that is
intended to be free in that sense to refer to the FSD. (Or does it?)

> >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?

Now you’re getting it! :)

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

Why leave it undefined?  Is this another way of saying we leave it wide
open to interpretation because defining it now may be too restrictive in
future?  If so I think we have already ascertained that I do not agree
with that approach.

Again, any substantial change should be be proportionally discouraged,
and not just allowable by pressing the little button that just resolves
it to be interpreted as whomever decides it would be to their advantage
at the time.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall