[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Aaron Wolf]

I like "preservation".

So adapting my proposal further:



*"Open Knowledge allows anyone the freedoms to access, use, modify, and
share — subject only, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and
openness."*
--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

> Building on where the consensus is currently leading, here's a variation
> of my wording from before that was liked:
>
> *"Open Knowledge allows anyone the freedoms to access, use, modify, and
> share — subject only, at most, to protections that maintain provenance and
> openness."*
>
> This uses "Open Knowledge" instead of "Knowledge is Open if". It takes a
> more *active* style of grammar. I changed "redistribute" to "share" (the
> technical terms can come later I think).
>
> I added "access" emphasizing that quality — knowledge that is not
> accessible is not open regardless of whether you can do things with it
> after some burdensome access process. Note that this is not entirely new as
> there had always been some access emphasis. Note however that licenses
> don't necessarily require the access aspect themselves, so open access is
> an independent issue from the licensing, but I still think it fits as part
> of the definition.
>
> I also changed my original "requirements that protect…" to "protections
> that maintain…" but I don't feel strongly about that distinction. We could
> also say "terms that maintain" or "terms that protect" or other such
> combinations. I like the goal of emphasizing continuity in what this clause
> is trying to say.
>
> Keep in mind that we are trying to balance clarity and pithiness. I like
> my new proposal here in all it's pithiness.
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf
> wolftune.com
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 28/07/14 12:24 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>> >
>> > "Knowledge is open if anyone is free to use, modify, and
>> > redistribute it ? subject only, at most, to requirements for
>> > provenance and openness."
>>
>> Yes provenance and openness are better than attribution and share-alike.
>>
>> I'd prefer "protections for" to "requirements for" but this is still a
>> nicely robust definition.
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT1tHFAAoJECciMUAZd2dZaT0H/jTNCQDP94gkwE+TZ1N9Bq2q
>> iqhtF1gEEXnMujMmHy2cN2yiGe9INIafy00X6WdUzQENk6vzuC+6gH9CWKV8xYyj
>> AXCEhW8Aru5cUcU1VljSm62iX21Y0IDujvYeK3/9qmQXG1pgAel2xVxIpYRE4aOj
>> LDf6Q0G1rFCNjBgsLhs9n35eGyiOj9RVvE5wxy3mHDFQASerwFwXRGKMO0GlGrcn
>> CwsuvMzwaXj7EsFZyBSBSfL4sr738okqR5sh/KSGgzPdmLC0Xyi82V389vlVQbb2
>> DzrZN/SkBbrEBeEOmgBNQT/tocGcXvAOZwZ8BzUVT8OH/xM91LsMQjQMdeCGoso=
>> =PJdT
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140728/2d705296/attachment-0003.html>