[od-discuss] v2.0 dev section 1 review

[Herb Lainchbury]

Further to my previous note, I have moved the ideas for future revisions
into a separate document so they are easy to find when we need them:

https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-ideas.markdown

Herb


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Herb Lainchbury
<herb at dynamic-solutions.com>wrote:

> I have updated v2.0 dev as per our most recent discussion.
>
> # Goals
> As I mentioned on that call I think the principle goal of v2 is to simply
> make it easier to determine conformance of licenses by separating those
> clauses that deal with license issues from those that deal with the
> application of those licenses to works.
>
> A secondary goal is to reorient the phrasing of some of the conformance
> conditions so that they talk about what MUST be true about the license as
> opposed to what MUST NOT be true.  A subtle change but one which we think
> will determination simpler.
>
> Finally, anything else that makes the process of conformance determination
> simpler, while retaining the meaning - for example, removal of redundancies.
>
> Several suggestions for new conditions and recommendations have been made
> for possible inclusion in v2.  I recommend we first deal with meeting the
> above goals with an aim to not changing the actual meaning of the
> definition in this next release.  Once we accomplish that, then I am all
> for entertaining additions / modifications in subsequent releases.
>
> I think this will be easier for us to accomplish in a shorter period of
> time.
>
>
> To that end I have edited the draft document which can be found here:
>
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-dev.markdown
>
> Highlights of my changes are:
> * intro and terms are pre-ample as in v1
> * renamed headers as per discussion last meeting and prior meeting
> * the conditions are broken into two sections: section 1 of the document
> now relates to licenses and section 2 to works
> * section 1 has two subsections.  1.1 deals with conditions licenses must
> meet, while 1.2 deals with allowable conditions that licenses may require
> * removed (almost - see next two points) all *new* suggestions which we
> can consider after the next release (v2.0).  If you think I have removed
> something that is not new please speak up.
> * one *new* item is 2.1.1 which links the works to the licenses - which is
> needed, so it's not being removed.
> * another *new* item is a specific share-alike allowable condition
> * commented remaining clauses to show their origin
> * leaving other comments in place for now
> * have not modified section 2 text (other than headings) because Andrew is
> reviewing it separately
>
> Specific points / requests for feedback to note:
> * please review headings and see if they make sense.  trying to keep them
> short (one word if possible).
> * with the new reorientation of some of the clauses, 1.1.8 now seems
> redundant to me.  1.1.1 and 1.1.6 seem to me to cover everything in the
> first line of 1.1.8.  I have removed the second line of the prior 1.1.8 as
> I believe it's new material - please correct me if I'm wrong on this)
> * with respect to the remaining clauses - ideally the clauses would be
> self explanatory and thus would not require additional comments as some do
> now.  I don't know if we can achieve that in this release so I have left
> the remaining ones in for a round of discussion.
> * we talk about two allowable conditions in the summary statement (at most
> attribution and share-alike) but right now there appear to be three, the
> third being 1.2.1 Integrity.  Not sure if anything needs to be done with
> this or not but it seems it could be tidier.
>
> Thanks,
> Herb
>
>
>
>


-- 

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20140307/0d12d2df/attachment-0003.html>