[od-discuss] Open Definition addition/changes comments doc

[Herb Lainchbury]

I think we should go ahead with the rewrite based the work Luis has done.

I also think we should vote on 1.2 and get it in place.  For me, the main
point of 1.2 is that while the open definition summary statement is
explicit about what restrictions are permissible by the use of the words
"...subject only, at most...", the conditions of the definition have no
such statement.  I would like to see that added for clarity.

I don't think rewrite or the approval of 1.2 would have an impact on a vote
on the BC or AB licenses in their current form so I would support moving
forward on a conformance decision on those licenses at any time (with
further discussion on this list if necessary).

Herb



On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>wrote:

> Following up on call action items to discuss proposed new section, and
> other Open Definition changes in a Google Doc
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HWUPbcGMIY6oFDz4TcrYCxp1J5mdLv2spshyCtnfoRk/edit#
>
> Some explanatory text there, eg how relates to OGL AB and BC
> conformance decisions.
>
> Personally, I'm leaning toward a rewrite, presumably starting from the
> work Luis has done. But  comments in the doc about how to achieve
> clarity in the current framework more than welcome.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 

Herb Lainchbury, CEO, Dynamic Solutions Inc.
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20131021/60f17895/attachment-0001.html>