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

[Rob Myers]

On 11/12/10 13:14, Simon Ward wrote:
>
> So “free and open” *is* intended to mean something different (inferred

I would certainly hope not.

> 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?

Presumably.

> If the answer is “no”, what does it mean?
>
> If the answer to the first question is “yes”, does the definition
> satisfy the OKD?

I would certainly hope so.

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

It doesn't. Using it as a normative document will set and limit the 
terms of debate where it is referred to. This may be a good thing, it 
may not, but it is how it will work.

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

I believe that it does.

It's based on the DFSG, but nobody's perfect.

> 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?

Heck, no.

> 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?

I am wearily familiar with the concept.

> 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?)

I certainly refer to the FSD.

> Now you’re getting it! :)

I've the feeling I am. ;-)

> Why leave it undefined?

To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means that 
if the community could always say "It's the OKD, stupid!". :-)

To avoid *another* dependency on another project.

To avoid rules lawyering. I've had people tell me that the GPL and AGPL 
opposing DRM and SaaS makes them non-free because tdoing so is 
"discrimination against a field of endeavo(u)r".

To avoid *another* document that will be interminably criticised by 
self-identified time-wasters.

> 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.

I am saying we cannot know what future requirements will be except that 
they may not be the same as present requirements. More detail is not 
always better. The FSD is much less detailed than the DFSG, and in my 
opinion it is by far the clearer and less confusing document.

> 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.

A vote is not pressing a little button. Not in that sense at least.

- Rob.