[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Andrew Katz]

Hi Aaron

Yes - you'll have sensed that I feel  I'm being a bit nit-picky here as well so this isn't something I'm going to get too excited about. 'Provenance' is good, because it also captures the requirement in some free/open source contracts that changes are noted and tracked. I don't think 'attribution' really does that, so if we're only having one word, I'd rather it was 'provenance'.

best


Andrew

On 31 Jul 2014, at 16:30, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com<mailto:wolftune at gmail.com>> wrote:

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<http://wolftune.com/>


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