[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Aaron Wolf]

I realize now that my rephrasing at the beginning turns this into a
definition of "Open Knowledge" instead of a definition of "Open". I'm not
sure that's a problem, but it is a major shift that I hadn't noticed before
(given that it previously still said "Knowledge is open if…" which was
already limited to whatever "knowledge" is rather than anything open). My
overall feelings is that it makes total sense for this to be the definition
of Open Knowledge and that we can go around saying "this is Open
Knowledge!" and "that is *not* Open Knowledge" etc. — it becomes a more
identifiable item and strongly connects this definition to the
organization. I actually think that's preferable to trying to insist that
this is the definition of a common English word generally.

So, I stick by my proposal:



*"Open Knowledge allows anyone the freedoms to access, use, modify, and
share — subject only, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and
openness."*
I'm just working to make sure everyone is aware of the ramifications of
each of the several minor changes I've made to get to that.

Cheers,
Aaron

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com


On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Herb Lainchbury <
herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:

> 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/20140730/38a5563a/attachment-0003.html>