[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Andrew Katz]

Hi All


On 31 Jul 2014, at 15:40, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com<mailto:herb at dynamic-solutions.com>> wrote:

Aaron, please go ahead and make this change to the summary statement in github, or if you prefer, I can do it.


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 still a little uncomfortable with this. The measures don't preserve provenance, they preserve information about provenance. '...measures that preserve openness and record provenance' would be better. On a slightly more pedantic point, a copyright notice is, arguably, not always something that evidences provenance. If I write a novel and assign the rights to ABC Limited, then ABC Limited should be recognised as the copyright owner, but I don't think it's correct to refer to that as part of the provenance. The names of sponsors, authors and so on would be part of the provenance. To deal with this, I reluctantly propose that we extend this to:

'... measures that preserve openness and record title and provenance'.

<snip>

Best


Andrew