[od-discuss] v2.0dev Review Requested

Fri May 9 18:27:13 UTC 2014

A number of thoughts:

Summary: *Data or content is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and
> redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute
> and/or share-alike.*
>

First, it would be ideal to find a better subject for this sentence than
"data or content".  The word "content" is a problem term. Although I'm not
suggesting deference to their dogma, it is on the GNU project's list of
problem words: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content
Words like "works" and "information" and "publications" are better.
Notice that if we make the subject, "content or data" it really feels
awkward. That highlights the lousiness of the word "content". In this case,
I think "data" is fine; we just need a better term for works generally.

Second, free use, reuse, and redistribution doesn't cover *access*. Can we
really say that something is "open" if access to it initially is
prohibitive. I think access needs to be included alongside the other
things. Also, modification isn't explicitly covered here. How about
"access, use, modification, and redistribution" in this summary?

I really *like* the focus on being synonymous with "free" and "libre". It's
wonderful that we're trying to be inclusive rather than distinctive. That
said, "free" and "libre" do not directly reference access. As I mentioned
above, I think access is essential for openness, and "libre" definitions
only address the freedoms after you have gotten access. So we should add
"access" to the freedoms covered by "open" and clarify that "open" includes
all the values of "free/libre" *plus* the value of open access. It would be
fine to reference how, in practice, most things described as "free/libre"
are indeed open access.

Ah, I see "work" is embraced in the formal definition (instead of "content"
etc), so let's just be consistent in the summary too.

As I said above, I don't think the term "reuse" necessarily carries
connotations of being able to substantially modify something. I think
"modification" is better. I don't feel strongly about this, as the
definition is clear in the details.

In 1.2.1 there's a missing comma after "if this condition is imposed"

The "must" in 1.2.2 is totally redundant (and thus confusing even) given
the word "require"

2.1.2 includes the access issues I was talking about, so we just need to
include "access" in the summary and other relevant places.

There's no reason for a 2.1 section if there's no 2.2. Just makes 2.1.1 and
2.1.2 and 2.1.3 become 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

The wording "the performance of the licensed rights" is a bit legalistic in
wording and unfriendly to regular people.

"This can be achieved by the provision of the work in an open data format"
is also legalistic and wordy. First, The heading is "open format" so let's
stick with that instead of "open data format". Overall, I suggest this be
changed to "

" no restrictions monetary or otherwise upon its use" needs commas, as in:
"no restrictions*,* monetary or otherwise*,* upon its use"

A suggestion then for 2.1.3:

"The *work* *must* be provided in an Open format, i.e., one whose
specification is freely available to the public and which places no
restrictions monetary or otherwise upon its use. The work must also be
available in the preferred form for making modifications."

The problem with saying that no technological restrictions impede the
licensed rights is that it becomes really complex. We could say things like
"this older computer doesn't run the program that uses this format, that's
a technological restriction." The important thing is not that we can remove
all technological issues but that the work doesn't itself impose them
intentionally.

Anyway, I have a suggestion for a NEW section. It is a bit bold:

We need to say that works must not be encumbered by patents or other legal
restrictions that frustrate the licensed rights. In other words, we
addressed technological restrictions, but we must also say that to be
"open" a publisher must also not impose legal restrictions to the freedoms
of access, use, modification, redistribution…

Cheers,

Aaron Wolf
Snowdrift.coop

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>wrote:

> I think this now looking *really good* :-)
>
> Some final thoughts (I think we are very close to having our 2.0 here!)
>
> A. I'm wondering if we swap section 2 and section 1 so that Open Works
> come first and then refers to Open License stuff which is section 2
>
> B. Section 2.1.1
>
> I think we need to make clearer that you actually need to apply an open
> license. Suggested tweak:
>
> The *work* *must* be available under an open *license *(as defined in
> section 1). Any additional terms accompanying the work (such as a terms
> of use) *must not* contradict the terms of the license.
>
> C. Machine readable and bulk
>
> We seem to have lost stuff around machine-readable and bulk. I wonder if
> we can tweak 2.1.3 (rename complements 2.1.1 which is about legal openness)
>
> 2.1.3 Technically Open
>
> The *work* *must* be provided in a convenient and modifiable form such
> that there are no unnecessary technological obstacles to the performance of
> the licensed rights. Specifically, data should be machine-readable,
> available in bulk and provided in formats that are open or, at the very
> least, can be processed with at least one free/open source software tool.
>
> Comment: an open data format is one whose specification is publicly and
> freely available and which places no restrictions monetary or otherwise
> upon its use.
>
> Aside: could also provide a definition of machine readable if needed e.g.
> this is what we have on http://okfn.org/opendata/ i.e.
>
> <quote>
> Data can be provided in many ways and this can have significant impact on
> the ability to easily use it. The Definition thus requires that data be
> machine-readable and available in “bulk”.
>
> Data is machine-readable if it can be easily processed by a computer. This
> does not just mean digital, but that it is in a digital structure that is
> appropriate for the relevant processing. For example, consider a PDF
> document containing tables of data. These are digital, but computers will
> struggle to extract the information from the PDF (even though it is very
> human readable!). The equivalent tables in a format such as a spreadsheet
> would be machine readable. Read more about [machine-readability in the open
> data glossary].
>
> Data is available in bulk if you download or access the whole dataset
> easily. Conversely it is non-bulk if you are you limited to just getting
> parts of the dataset, for example, are you restricted to a few elements of
> the data at a time – imagine for example trying to a database of all the
> towns in the world one element at a time.
> </quote>
>
>
> On 7 May 2014 23:05, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
>
>> I have further refined the v2.0 dev file and think it's getting close to
>> final form.
>>
>>  As discussed I've removed all comments and examples and attempted to
>> make things clear without losing anything.  I think you should be able to
>> look at v1.1 and find every clause covered in v2.0dev, though in some cases
>> in the new "must" form rather than the v1.1 "must not" form.
>>
>> You'll find it here:
>>
>> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-dev.markdown
>>
>> I request that members of the AC review this draft and confirm that it is
>> at least as rigorous as v1.1 and if not, make suggestions.  We don't want
>> to unintentionally lose anything in the revision.
>>
>> Once we're satisfied that we haven't lost anything I would suggest we
>> test it against existing conformant licenses and make sure we're consistent
>> with v1.1 in that previously approved licenses would still be approved
>> under the new version (or if not, be able to explain why not).
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Herb
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> * Rufus Pollock Founder and President | skype: rufuspollock |
> @rufuspollock <https://twitter.com/rufuspollock> Open Knowledge
> <http://okfn.org/> - see how data can change the world **http://okfn.org/
> <http://okfn.org/> | @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | Open Knowledge on
> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog
> <http://blog.okfn.org/>*
>
> The Open Knowledge Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation.  It is
> incorporated in England & Wales as a company limited by guarantee, with
> company number 05133759.  VAT Registration № GB 984404989. Registered
> office address: Open Knowledge Foundation, St John’s Innovation Centre,
> Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WS, UK.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140509/4e2c194d/attachment-0003.html>