[od-discuss] OD Summay
herb at dynamic-solutions.com
Mon Apr 20 20:58:47 UTC 2015
I have examined all four versions (including Aarons suggestion). I think
the one on the home page is best, with the word "requirements" replaced by
"Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any
purpose (subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and
This summary is just describing the adjective "open". As a summary to me it
seems clean, and easy to use on it's own. And, I think that's mostly how
it's used in conversation.
It can be applied to nouns such as knowledge, data and works in general...
Having the last part in parentheses implies that the rest of it could stand
on it's own - which it can grammatically, but I don't think it can as a
general assertion, so I would consider removing the brackets as well.
Is there any reason we *need* to refer to knowledge, data or content in the
summary? Can we leave it to the definition to apply the word "open" and
just stick to defining "open" in the summary?
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:
> I added a comment on the GitHub link.
> I hadn't noticed that issue before with the double definition that tries
> for concision but actually only makes the wording longer, more confusing,
> and adds redundancy.
> Note that even the variations shown are inconsistent in the term
> "measures" vs "requirements" — I definitely prefer "measures" as it is more
> general and, I think, more appropriate for this summary.
> For reference, the *additional* new proposal I added on GitHub is:
> *"Open" means unrestricted.* Specifically, anyone can freely access, use,
> modify, and share any open data, open content, and other forms of open
> knowledge (subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and
> I'm not sure it's best, but it offers elements for consideration. I
> dislike the specification of "open data" and "open content" without
> reference to open knowledge. I prefer either "open knowledge" be included
> (and I could skip having "open content" ever mentioned but won't insist) or
> not use an noun examples.
> I **strongly** agree that there should be one functional summary statement
> used in all cases.
> On 03/01/2015 09:56 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > On 02/13/2015 07:57 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> > > In checking the text for the Ireland paper on licenses I realized we
> > > have three similar but distinct summary statements.
> > >
> > > Two on the landing page:
> > >
> > > “Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any
> > > purpose (subject, at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and
> > > openness).”
> > >
> > > “Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by
> > > anyone for any purpose”
> > >
> > > and one on the definition page:
> > >
> > > "Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share
> > > it — subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and
> > >
> > >
> > > Is there some good reason for this that I'm missing?
> > >
> > > My thinking is that we should have one unless there is some reason to
> > > have more than one.
> > Rufus added the third one at
> > I prefer only one on the home page and in the current OD version. We
> > should be so happy with the summary in 2.1 that we don't feel a need to
> > tweak for the home page.
> > 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
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the od-discuss