[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Aaron Wolf]

I am perfectly fine with the more passive version just posted by Herb,
despite that I don't prefer the extra verbiage and pronoun.

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Herb Lainchbury <
herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:

> 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/20140731/5a29ae48/attachment-0003.html>