[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Thu Jul 31 17:33:27 UTC 2014

I prefer both the active wording and the improved clarity. I don't object
to making "knowledge" lowercase. I think there's value in saying we're
defining Open Knowledge much like people define Free Software
(capitalized), but I don't feel strongly. It's clear in even earlier
versions that there's this reference to the domain of "knowledge" anyway,
so we're not really defining "open" for every possible context.

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pull request is up for the change to the summary sentence
>>
>>>
>>> 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 not thrilled with "Open Knowledge" as an actor. I'm all for active
> form, but is this accurate? Further, why capital K? The actor clearly is
> not Open Knowledge the organization. I think I prefer the "Knowledge is
> open if anyone is free...it..." But I don't feel all that strongly.
>
> Mike
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140731/52ada7c5/attachment-0003.html>