Apparently it is possible to misread OD 2.0 as allowing DRM'd works. It does not but 2.1 should be harder to misread.

okfn / opendefinition

Open Definition source

https://opendefinition.org/

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

109 stars 123 forks source link

Apparently it is possible to misread OD 2.0 as allowing DRM'd works. It does not but 2.1 should be harder to misread. #76

Closed mlinksva closed 9 years ago

mlinksva commented 9 years ago

See https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-December/001186.html

wolftune commented 9 years ago

From that e-mail, an adaptation of my suggested rewording:

"The license may require that all distributions and derivatives of the work remain free of technical measures that would restrict the exercise of otherwise allowed rights."

I think this is much less problematic in reading, but it still is wordier than I'd prefer.

hlainchb commented 9 years ago

I am preparing a draft 2.1 now which will include this text.

wolftune commented 9 years ago

This seems complete in https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown

Can we close this ticket?