Re: OK Definition is flawed by imposing restrictions

D.B. Free wrote:

> This is clearly a restriction of knowledge and information, since by
> definition any terms are a limitation.

What if the term was "you may do anything with this work"? Would that 
"by definition" be a limitation?

It would not. Your premise is therefore false.

What if the term was "you may restrict use of this knowledge by whoever 
you wish"? Would that "by definition" be a limitation?

It would not be a limitation by your definition, but it will lead to far 
more restriction and limitation of people's ability to actually use the 
knowledge or imformation than a "restriction" that would prevent this.

Your premise is therefore self-defeating in practice.

> There are numerous examples, but the the root problem is that all
> prohibitions contradict the basic definition  "A piece of knowledge is
> open if you are free to use, reuse, and redistribute it."

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.

> 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
> knowledge.

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.

- Rob.