[od-discuss] Edits for v2.0dev Headings

Thu Feb 13 09:16:26 UTC 2014

http://opendefinition.org/2013/12/13/notes-from-open-definition-call-december-2013/
> Headings should be consistent -- now some are one-word, others
> more prescriptive on their own. All prescriptive is a good goal, allowing
> a skimmer of headings to basically understand.
> ACTION: Herb to attempt bringing all to consistent, prescriptive state.

When I raised this point my main issue was that some of the headings seemed
inconsistent.  After going through them it was less of an issue than I had
first thought but still I would suggest a few minor changes to the headings.

--

Proposed Heading Revisions

1. Introduction

2. Terminology

3. Open Licenses
3.1 Required Permissions
3.1.1 Use
3.1.2 Redistribution
3.1.3 Reuse (formerly Modification - I may have missed why this was being
renamed, maybe there is good reason)
3.1.4 Separation (a new required permission?)
3.1.5 Compilation (the positive form of v1.1 clause 11)
3.1.6 Application (formerly Application to Any Purpose)
3.1.7 Privacy

3.2 Acceptable Conditions
3.2.1 Attribution
3.2.2 Integrity
3.2.3 Access (formerly Access and Restrictions - not sure what this is for,
downstream work? for later discussion)

3.3 Recommendations for Open Licenses
3.3.1 Reuse (formerly Reusable)
3.3.2 Compatible
3.3.3 Coverage
3.3.4 Understandable

4. Open Works
4.1 Mandatory Conditions
4.1.1 Open License (formerly License and Licensing Information)
4.1.2 Available (formerly Access)
4.1.3 Open Format (formerly Absence of Technological Restrictions)

4.2 Recommendations for Open Works

--

Thoughts as I went through these:
 * I think the that the required permissions need to be explicit, however I
think that some of these would cause a non-conformance decision (i.e. if a
license says you can use it for any purpose but doesn't explicitly say
private study is allowed can it still be considered open?)
 * I think the recommendations confuse this document.  I understand the
desire to recommend for example non-proliferation, but I am unconvinced
that recommendations belong in the definition.  I think they more rightly
belong in a companion self-assessment process or guidelines document.
 * I only considered the headings at this point but see lots of opportunity
for discussion on a point by point basis in the accompanying text.  Ideally
I would like to see v2.0 clarify the difference between an open license and
an open work, and employ the new approach of required permissions, while
preserving as much of the v1.1 text as possible.
* The following list reflect changes I propose to the existing v2.0
headings but I hope that as we go through the text, some of these headings
will be found redundant and thus removable or better off in a companion doc.

Herb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140213/cbb81ac0/attachment-0002.html>