[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Thu Jul 31 15:30:36 UTC 2014

I slightly disagree about the concern over "provenance". The summary
doesn't clarify all the details, as it is just a summary. Provenance is
like the history of ownership, and if you do a work for hire in the
strongest sense, then it really is the hirer who would be indicated for the
copyright, I think. And if you otherwise assign a copyright, then the
history would be that it was yours, and then was changed.

On the other hand, I don't particularly love "provenance", and I'd be ok
with saying "preserve attribution" as in "measures that preserve
attribution and openness" as I'm not sure there's other provenance being
considered.

I think it's clear that "measures that preserve" is nicer than the old
wording, and what is being preserved is definitely "openness" and something
else that  is or subsumes the idea of "attribution"

Any other suggestions for that one word, or opinions on "attribution" vs
"provenance" ?

--
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/20140731/519a4d90/attachment-0003.html>