[od-discuss] continued revision of the definition

Mon Oct 21 15:12:11 UTC 2013

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Kent Mewhort <kent at openissues.ca> wrote:

>  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).
>

Thanks for engaging with my proposal, Kent. I really like the switch from
negative conditions to positive rights - I think it overall works much
better. (And agree about moving the definitions to the end, or perhaps
trying to get rid of them altogether.)

POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTION FOR SOMEONE: We probably need to go through the
various emails in my TODO to create a master list of all new suggestions
that have been made for new permissions/restrictions, and making sure they
all fit into this scheme - I have not had time to do that.

My only quibble is with your last comment in the definition about the AC's
discretion on new conditions. My experience is that authors are very
creative in finding new ways to restrict the mandatory rights/permissions,
and so the AC needs discretion to say "this is a new, creative, but still
wrong restriction". I would agree that the AC probably should not have
discretion to say "this is a new, creative, and *acceptable* restriction" -
we should only be able to say no, not yes.

Luis

> 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 listod-discuss at lists.okfn.orghttp://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/20131021/4931d2be/attachment-0001.html>