[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Mon Jul 28 21:22:23 UTC 2014

I think the provenance and openness wording (permitting protections for
those) is fine. People who say share-alike isn't open are either (A)
dogmatic permissive-license supporters who think any restrictions at all
(even those to preserve openness) are objectionable or (B) those who point
out that share-alike isn't *sufficient* to be open (because CC-BY-NC-SA is
non-open, not because of SA but because of NC).

I see no need to explicitly use "share-alike" as the term in this context,
although I'm not opposed either. I do favor a more general "protecting
continued openness) type of clause. The key is that this statement is too
vague on its own no matter what, so it is only a summary. The later clauses
are the real deal.

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:

> On 7/28/2014 12:24 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>
>> This would be redundant -- protect provenance and openness are categories
>> attribution and share-alike fall into.
>>
> Will it clear elsewhere in the text that share-alkie is within the scope
> of protecting the provenance and openness of works? I've seen people claim
> share-alike is non-open.
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140728/7b5c9d33/attachment-0003.html>