[od-discuss] OD 2.0 introduction rewrite

[Mike Linksvayer]

On 02/04/2014 02:55 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> Always interesting to see how OD is characterized, in this case as "the
> gold standard of 'open'" -- http://okfn.org/impact/opendefinition/
> 
> Also just noticed OD prominently referred to
> in https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Vision,_values_and_mission_(proposed)
> ... and some criticism on the talk page, amounting to (based on a skim
> so far) difficulty of reading and lack of mention of freedom. First is
> clearly a target of OD 2.0, perhaps it would be helpful to explicitly
> state relation to free-as-in-freedom as well, in the introduction which
> I did commit to rewrite on the last telecon...

http://opendefinition.org/2013/12/13/notes-from-open-definition-call-december-2013/
> Rewrite introduction, highlight principle anyone/any purpose, possibly scope some way other than defining “knowledge”.
> 
>     ACTION: Mike to draft.

Here's what I came up with, in part adapted from
http://opendefinition.org home page:
 --
The Open Definition makes precise the meaning of "open" with respect to
data and content, promoting a robust knowledge commons in which anyone
may participate and innovate, and in which barriers to interoperability
among pools of data and content are minimized.

Summary: Data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and
redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute
and/or share-alike.

This essential meaning is the same as that of "open" with respect to
software, contained in the Open Source Definition, and is synonymous
with "free" or "libre"; see the Definition of Free Cultural Works. The
Open Definition was initially derived from the Open Source Definition,
which in turn was derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
 --

Diff
https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/commit/970a1bc7a14e0f5bed882434c3a19009e2abc200#diff-8f188dcdc47474f611d8abdc04c5406e

Notes:
* I didn't move the history to a footnote. I think as stated it explains
a lot and is pretty easy to read.
* "ensures interoperability" on the home page isn't strictly true,
probably think about rewording that too
* I wonder if the "Introduction" heading should be lost, renumbering
everything below?
* I wonder if Summary: should be moved to the top, becoming the first
paragraph rather than the second?

Mike