[od-discuss] continued revision of the definition

[Kent Mewhort]

Great work, Luis. I think this split between the license/work is the
right direction to go.

I've added some comments to Luis' draft and experimented with inverting
all the negative conditions to positive rights: 
https://github.com/kmewhort/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-dev.markdown. 
Let me know if you think this works well or not.  I'd also be
particularly interested in what others think of having a section in the
Open Works definition for "soft", recommended criteria (eg. archiving,
metadata, use of open standards, availability of APIs, etc).

Kent

On 13-10-18 06:05 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> After last week's call, I revised my draft to reflect the discussion
> we had about Sec. 12. This is a substantial revision at this point,
> because it splits the definition into three parts:
>
> 1. minimum permissions (based on current OKD + addition of explicit
> use right, from four freedoms)
> 2. conditions that are permitted (e.g., share-alike, no TPM)
> 3. conditions that are not permitted; along with a statement that the
> "advisory committee may, in discretion, reject other restrictions that
> significantly impinge on the minimum permissions"
>
> I think the statement in #3 solves what the new Sec. 12 in Mike's
> draft was intended to solve but in a cleaner way.
>
> The full draft is here:
> https://github.com/tieguy/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-dev.markdown
>
> Curious to hear your thoughts-
> Luis
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20131021/0d3f426a/attachment-0001.html>