[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Herb Lainchbury <
herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:

> The word "rigor" was a poor choice.  Apologies.
>
> Thanks everyone for the clarification.
>
> I am in favour of keeping these clauses for the reasons that Aaron and
> Mike provide.  I think they add clarity, make explicit what was formerly
> implicit and are in-line with our overall intention that they work for the
> general benefit of the open knowledge community.
>
>
> I wonder if we need to update the summary statement?
>
> "Knowledge is open if anyone is free to use, modify, and redistribute it —
> subject only, at most, to requirements to attribute and share-alike."
>
> Could it read?
>
> "Knowledge is open if anyone is free to use, modify, and redistribute it —
> subject only, at most, to requirements to attribute, share-alike and
> protect the provenance and openness of works."
>

This would be redundant -- protect provenance and openness are categories
attribution and share-alike fall into. I don't think we need to change as
attribute and share-alike could be broadly interpreted as requirements for
provenance and openness rather than specific conditions by those names, and
might be more comprehensible for a summary statement. But if we did change
I'd suggest something like

"Knowledge is open if anyone is free to use, modify, and redistribute it —
subject only, at most, to requirements for provenance and openness."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140728/1c0f13a6/attachment-0003.html>