[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Mike Linksvayer]

Note the free software definition does not make the software an actor:

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential
freedoms:

[...]


FSF pages do often talk about software respecting user freedom, even on
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html outside of the definition
itself, but such talk is bogus. The definition has it right. Software can
be shared in a way that respects user freedom, but the software itself is
not an actor.


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20140731/4e626690/attachment-0003.html>