[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Fri Aug 1 20:03:26 UTC 2014

+1

________________
*Baden M Appleyard*

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Timothy Vollmer <tvol at creativecommons.org>
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Herb Lainchbury <
> herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
>
>> I am leaning toward OK not being an actor.
>>
>> The current v1.1 form reduces to:  X if Y   ( X <-- Y )
>>
>> The current v2.0 proposed version reduces to:  X then Y  ( X --> Y )
>>
>> A different assertion.  It may be that it's biconditional, in which case
>> both statements are true, but I think the purpose of the OD is to specify
>> the first one.
>>
>> My preference is:
>>
>> *"Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share
>> it — subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness."*
>>
>
> +1. I like this construction better.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Note the free software definition does not make the software an actor:
>>>
>>> A program is free software if the program's users have the four
>>> essential freedoms:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> FSF pages do often talk about software respecting user freedom, even on
>>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html outside of the definition
>>> itself, but such talk is bogus. The definition has it right. Software can
>>> be shared in a way that respects user freedom, but the software itself is
>>> not an actor.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I prefer both the active wording and the improved clarity. I don't
>>>> object to making "knowledge" lowercase. I think there's value in saying
>>>> we're defining Open Knowledge much like people define Free Software
>>>> (capitalized), but I don't feel strongly. It's clear in even earlier
>>>> versions that there's this reference to the domain of "knowledge" anyway,
>>>> so we're not really defining "open" for every possible context.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Aaron Wolf
>>>> wolftune.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pull request is up for the change to the summary sentence
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:wolftune at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> One more edit. I think "only, at most," reads awkwardly and is
>>>>>>> excessive. If it is "at most" than obviously other measures are not
>>>>>>> included. So:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Open Knowledge allows anyone the freedoms to access, use, modify,
>>>>>>> and share — subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and
>>>>>>> openness."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>  I'm not thrilled with "Open Knowledge" as an actor. I'm all for
>>>>> active form, but is this accurate? Further, why capital K? The actor
>>>>> clearly is not Open Knowledge the organization. I think I prefer the
>>>>> "Knowledge is open if anyone is free...it..." But I don't feel all that
>>>>> strongly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> od-discuss mailing list
>>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> od-discuss mailing list
>> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Timothy Vollmer
> Public Policy Manager, Creative Commons
> Get Creative Commons Updates http://bit.ly/commonsnews
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140802/55e3796c/attachment-0002.html>