[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Aaron Wolf]

One more edit. I think "only, at most," reads awkwardly and is excessive.
If it is "at most" than obviously other measures are not included. So:

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

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com


On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20140730/52b3bfe9/attachment-0003.html>