[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Wed Jul 30 18:02:24 UTC 2014

This version captures the types of restrictions that are acceptable rather
than just the two that were acceptable, and thus correctly pushes the
detail to the actual clauses.

I also like the "access" and "share" changes.

+1

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140730/f7c03e4d/attachment-0003.html>