[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Herb Lainchbury]

I am leaning toward OK not being an actor.

The current v1.1 form reduces to:  X if Y   ( X <-- Y )

The current v2.0 proposed version reduces to:  X then Y  ( X --> Y )

A different assertion.  It may be that it's biconditional, in which case
both statements are true, but I think the purpose of the OD is to specify
the first one.

My preference is:

*"Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share it
— subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness."*





On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140731/593cc607/attachment-0003.html>