[okfn-discuss] OK Definition is flawed by imposing restrictions
rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Mon Jan 14 11:04:35 GMT 2008
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:
> 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
> There is a difference between "open" and "restrictable" in much the same
> way that there is a difference between "free" and "enslaveable".
> 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.
What "acknowledgment of licences" did you have in mind here? I'd be very
interested to have your comments in this regard as well as any
suggestions for how things could be 'fixed' if there is something that
More information about the okfn-discuss