Comments for Jordan Hatcher

Comment on Norwegian Open Data License – draft now out by Pubblicata la nuova versione della Italian Open Data License

Pubblicata la nuova versione della Italian Open Data License — Sat, 21 May 2011 08:26:54 +0000

[...] esempio, sulla falsariga della IODL, la Norvegia ha recentemente pubblicato una prima bozza della Norvegian Open Data License) in quanto fornisce alle Amministrazioni uno strumento valido ed affidabile con cui rendere [...]

Comment on Open Licenses vs Public Licenses by Norwegian Open Data License – draft now out

Norwegian Open Data License – draft now out — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 08:02:26 +0000

[...] for the specific notifications on personal data and similar issues; and the second an established public open data [...]

Comment on Gender and contract drafting by Ken Adams

Ken Adams — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:59:33 +0000

Jordan: This is an example of what I call "provisions specifying drafting conventions." Most are redundant; this one is also clumsy.

The idea is that if a contract uses "he" to refer generically to one of a group consisting of both men and women, the drafter doesn't want that provision applied only to the males in that group. But that's a very unlikely notion, so this kind of provision is usually found only in the more risk-averse contracts.

Furthermore, this provision is overbroad. If you use "she" to refer specifically to a party who is a woman, why should that be construed also to mean "he"?

But more to the point, contracts can, as you suggest, readily be drafted so as to be gender-neutral.

Regarding "neuter," I assume that's intended to refer to entities, and not hermaphrodites!

This topic is currently on my mind, as I'm revising a document-assembly template to cover all pronoun possibilities.

Ken

Comment on Public Domain Assertions versus Dedications by Posting over at jordanhatcher.com | opencontentlawyer

Posting over at jordanhatcher.com | opencontentlawyer — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:53:25 +0000

[...] Public Domain Assertions versus Dedications * Open Licenses vs Public Licenses * CC’s Public Domain Mark versus the Open Access Data Mark [...]

Comment on The non-open Italian Open Data License by Glen Newton

Glen Newton — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 01:30:11 +0000

I've blogged about similar issues with the non-open nature of the claimed open data licenses of a number of prominent Canadian cities: It's not Open Data, so stop calling it that.... In this case, the licenses allow the cities to arbitrarily and retroactively refuse access/use of the data of someone. As I point out here (What is Open Gov Data? The Sunlight Foundation: Ten Principles for Opening Up Government Information), these restrictions break the non-discrimination, licensing and permanence (they don't version their data or their licenses, & don't tie these together) of the Sunlight Foundation's 10 Principles. Yet these cities are claiming that they are using Open licenses.

Yes, we need to hold these institutions feet-to-the-fire with respect to their claims to openness and what their licenses actually define.

Comment on Should we have fair use in the UK? by Andrew Rens

Andrew Rens — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:27:28 +0000

I agree with alongside rather than instead of. There is no good reason why a country should not have both specific provisions and general limitations. I am from a fair dealing jurisdiction, but we need fair use because it helps to future proof a copyright law, allowing the development of new activities instead of just calcifying old ones. Its also a useful provision for impact litigation, especially class actions, which is a useful way for non traditional rights holders to organize.

Comment on Open Licenses vs Public Licenses by The non-open Italian Open Data License

The non-open Italian Open Data License — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:07:39 +0000

[...] public licenses is hard work, and the authors are to complimented for attempting it and for caring about open [...]

Comment on SG for life: Price? One logo tattoo and some IP issues by Jordan Hatcher

Jordan Hatcher — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:37:44 +0000

Just a follow up: Here's someone in Iowa that got a logo tattoo on their forehead and lost out on the offered compensation.

Comment on CC’s new Public Domain Mark by Public Domain Assertions versus Dedications

Public Domain Assertions versus Dedications — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:08:13 +0000

[...] Jordan Hatcher intellectual property, technology, open licensing, law and strategy Skip to content AboutEducationUT Law – University of Edinburgh JD/LLM programTeaching ExperiencePast sites and projectsLawyerCreditsLegalPrivacy PolicyIP policyIAALBIANYLPublicationsPresentationsOpen DataContactBlog « SCL Thames Valley: The use of “free” – Nov 17th CC’s new Public Domain Mark » [...]

Comment on Having fun with COPPA by Rosemary ONeill

Rosemary ONeill — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 02:47:14 +0000

You’re totally right about Threadless not being necessarily “directed to children.” The reason I feel that they should not be tying COPPA to their birthdate request is not stemming from the law itself, it’s from the way it has been interpreted and enforced. Back when the rule first came about, my company worked with CARU and some of the other folks putting together the policy because we were developers of an online community software that had an age-check on the front end. They specifically contacted us and told us that the age-check could not be “explained” to the person registering (regardless of whether the site was child-targeted or not).

It is frustrating and confusing, and even as they review the law for a possible update, some of the changes they are contemplating will make it even more weird. (I blogged about the updates recently: http://socialstrata.livecloud.com/displaycontent/content/170308749721367808)

By the way, I’m a huge fan of Threadless as well. They’re totally cool. And I’m subscribing to your blog as well, because I like your style