[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Thu Jul 31 14:40:15 UTC 2014

Aaron, please go ahead and make this change to the summary statement in
github, or if you prefer, I can do it.

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 

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/20140731/71d272db/attachment-0003.html>