[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Thu Jul 31 15:23:35 UTC 2014

Pull request is up for the change to the summary sentence

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Andrew Katz <Andrew.Katz at moorcrofts.com>
wrote:

> Hi All
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2014, at 15:40, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com
> <mailto:herb at dynamic-solutions.com>> wrote:
>
> 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<mailto:
> 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."
>
> --
>
>
> I'm still a little uncomfortable with this. The measures don't preserve
> provenance, they preserve information about provenance. '...measures that
> preserve openness and record provenance' would be better. On a slightly
> more pedantic point, a copyright notice is, arguably, not always something
> that evidences provenance. If I write a novel and assign the rights to ABC
> Limited, then ABC Limited should be recognised as the copyright owner, but
> I don't think it's correct to refer to that as part of the provenance. The
> names of sponsors, authors and so on would be part of the provenance. To
> deal with this, I reluctantly propose that we extend this to:
>
> '... measures that preserve openness and record title and provenance'.
>
> <snip>
>
> Best
>
>
> Andrew
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140731/5f1040d1/attachment-0003.html>