[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.0 - dangling reference to FLOSS

[Mike Linksvayer]

On 12/09/2014 11:50 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ od-discuss@ is refusing my posts and I do not fancy joining another
>   list, so feel free to fwd and/or quote me in full there ]

Done.

> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:05:26AM -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> Zack, the detail here was whether we say that "processing with a
>> Free/Libre/Open software tool" is enough. Because there was a call for
>> "that's not enough! The format needs to be Open! It's not ok to have
>> Excel files just because LibreOffice can open them."
> 
> Ack, thanks.
> 
>> I'm not sure, this is an issue for the list to discuss. Indeed, this
>> Open Knowledge group does determination of licenses meeting the Open
>> Definition actually. I think it's ok to say (again, as we do at
>> Snowdrift.coop), "meet the Free Software Definition or Open Source
>> Definition, including use of licenses approved by the FSF or OSI"
> 
> That (with suitable hyperlinks) would be a satisfactory fix.
> 
> How do you want to go about this? Should I submit an issue / pull
> request with some tentative wording based on the above? Or is this now
> already on your radar enough that you'll pick it from here?

https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/75

I think you can count on it being handled from here.

Thanks for raising it!

Mike