[od-discuss] OD v2 accepts Excel as OpenData?!???

Wed Oct 8 19:59:24 UTC 2014

Yes, agreed all around. By "other values", I meant sharing/using/modifying
(not just access).

As a non-programmer, I certainly had the impression that "open" was indeed
a fine way to get into talking about all these things, but since I've waded
a lot into the "Open Source" world, it's clear to me that there's *deep*
truth to the Free Software Foundation's concerns that "Open" degrades the
message of freedom and ethics. As far as most programmers are concerned,
"closed source" seems reasonable enough, and "open" is a practical matter.
The lingo of "Open Source" definitely does *not* get most of those people
to think about the issues of having a free society. I have taken to the
acronym FLO (Free/Libre/Open) to talk about these things.

I think we have to admit that no matter if various manifestos and
definitions say it, emphasizing "access" will *always* have people saying,
"this was published online, and I can read it *for free*, so I have access,
I don't know what you're complaining about." While talking about FLO will
bring up, "what is that?" and the answer: "things being free to access,
use, modify, and share, without restrictions." And then it's clear to
everyone.

Cheers,
Aaron

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Rens <andrewrens at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 8 October 2014 15:08, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I agree that the issue is relevant.
>>
>
>
>
>> However, if I can in actual practice open the Excel file in LibreOffice
>> and do everything I need to do, then I do actually have all the freedoms I
>> need, essentially, even if the situation is not ideal.
>>
>
> My primary point was that law and tech can both be barriers to use,
> therefore the Open Definition should deal with both tech and law. I think
> we agree on that.
>
> I also suggested that the current version of the Definition deals with
> tech in two ways, by stipulating either an open format or accessible
> proprietary format. The second category is what seemed to me to be an
> attempt to define "the functional equivalent of open formats". Whether that
> wording captures functional equivalence in practise seems to me to be an
> empirical question.
>
>
>> So, *if* data is held in a format I actually cannot use in practice,
>> then it frustrates my freedoms. Hence, the wording in OD v2 does do the
>> minimum to ensure that openness is functional.
>>
>
> That is what I understood the definition to be attempting to do, I didn't
> intend to suggest otherwise. Whether the wording does actually do the
> minimum to preserve the freedoms is an empirical question.
>
>
>>
>> Anyway, "open access" is not the pinnacle issue.
>>
>
> I was simply using the terms that Paul Norman used since  I wanted to be
> clear what my agreements and disagreements with him where. But since I also
> don't see "open access" as the best language I used the Blakian
> qualification 'writ large'.
>
>
>> Access alone doesn't imply freedoms of use, modification, and sharing.
>>
>
> It does as I read the Budapest and Berlin Declarations. I realise that
> publishers have tried to read down the idea of open access but I don't
> concede that they have conceded at all. I findt that on a pragmatic level
> the language of open is often very useful in securing freedom, I suspect
> that you would agree.
>
>
>> So the other values are *not* just in service of "open access".
>>
>
> I am not sure what you mean by other values here. I understand open
> licences and open formats (and functional equivalents) to be in service of
> freedom, not values in themselves.
>
>
> In any case we seem to agree that the Open Definition should mean open
> legally and technically.
>
> Cheers
>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Wolf
>> wolftune.com
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Andrew Rens <andrewrens at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/7/2014 9:42 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> - Is the push for open (document) standards related to but separate
>>>>> from the open definition?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> On 7 October 2014 23:49, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>  I think there's three distinct items here
>>>>
>>>> - Open licenses
>>>> - Open formats
>>>> - Open access
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree that these are conceptually distinct items but they are causally
>>> related, the objective is open access (writ large) and the means are open
>>> licences and open formats.
>>>
>>> I understand the definition to stipulate that the necessary means to
>>> ensure open access are (1) open licences and (2) open formats or the
>>> functional equivalent of open formats.
>>> If either is not present then the work is not open.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that the summation, conformant license page, and license approval
>>>> process all are focused on the license, not the work, it seems odd to be
>>>> worried about file formats at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree, both legal and technical openess are required for people
>>> to be able to share, use etc a work. This is the logic that makes open
>>> source software require that the source be open. For some of us 'code is
>>> law'.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141008/5a95c83e/attachment-0003.html>