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

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com
> wrote:

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

Great. I'm going to take a closer look at that and Kent's suggestions in
the next few days.


> 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 agree that's the main point of 1.2, but I'm not sure we gain much quickly
getting it in place given feedback on the last call that it would require
more wordsmithing. If it looks like the rewrite is going to take a year,
I'd change my opinion...


> 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).
>

I think you're probably right. Will review again and try to get either a
conformance vote or further discussion on BC and AB started in the next
couple weeks.

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20131023/caa21b5e/attachment-0001.html>