[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

[Kent Mewhort]

This is shaping up really well.  Some change suggestions, many of them
nit-picky:

>[1.1.2] ...or as part of a collection made from works from many
different sources.
I suggest striking "many", as it need not be many sources (OSI uses
"several", but it could be only two).

>[1.1.4] ...should have the same rights as those that are granted in
conjunction with the original package
Suggest: "should have the same rights as those granted with the original
work."  Mainly just trying to reduce the wordiness here, and sticking
with "work" is probably clearer than moving to "package" (as the bespoke
"part" may not necessarily be from a "package").

>[1.1.7] ...without the need for execution of an additional license...
I think this should change to "without the need to agree to any
additional legal terms".  It normally wouldn't be execution of an
additional /license/, but rather additional contractual terms (though I
do see that the OSI uses "additional license here"...)

>[1.1.8] The *license* /must/ allow use, redistribution, modification
and compilation, by any person or group of persons, for any purpose. The
license /must not/ restrict anyone from making use of the work in a
specific field of endeavor.
Other than the "for any purpose", the first sentence just repeats
previously states permissions, and the second sentence could be
interpreted to only apply to simple "use".  How about: "The license must
not restrict the permissions granted on the basis of any intended use or
field of endeavour."  Or, keeping with the positive wording, maybe "The
license must grant all permissions without restriction on any intended
uses or fields of endeavour."

>[1.1.9] The *license* /must not/ impose any fee arrangement, royalty,
or other compensation or monetary remuneration as part of its conditions.
I worded as a permission rather than restriction: "The license must
grant all permissions free of charge, without requiring any fee
arrangement, royaltly, or other compensation or monetary remuneration"

>[1.2.3] The license may require that copies or adaptations of a
licensed work...
This should be "copies or derivatives" for consistency ("adaptation" is
a copyright term used in Canada, and I think in India and some other
jurisdictions; "derivative" is more common in most other jurisdictions).

> 2.1 Mandatory Conditions
Using "Conditions" here is a bit confusing, as we're previously using
"Condition" to refer license restrictions, but here it refers to
positive attributes necessary for a work to be open.  Maybe just "2.1
Requirements"?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140609/efe568ff/attachment-0003.html>