[od-discuss] Open Definition Telecon 15:00 UTC Thursday 2015-02-12

Sun Feb 15 16:11:32 UTC 2015

I think the question is not what is the least burdensome way of writing a
licence but a factual question. Do (some) licences that should be regarded
as open definition requires that modified versions state what changes have
been made.

And if one looks at the GNU Free Documentation Licence 1.3 then in Section
4 on Modifications it requires that quite a few changes must be recorded.

It reads

"You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the
conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the
Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version
filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and
modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In
addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:"

"C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified
Version, as the publisher. "

"I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to
it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of
the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section
Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year,
authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add
an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."

"M. Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be
included in the Modified Version."

Quite specific conditions. Yet I would regard the GNU Free Documentation
Licence as exactly the kind of licence which should be compliant with the
Definition.

Similarly 2.3 of the Free Art licence  states "You have the right to modify
copies of the originals (whether initial or subsequent) provided you comply
with the following conditions: all conditions in article 2.2 above, if you
distribute modified copies; indicate that the work has been modified and,
if it is possible, what kind of modifications have been made..."

Again I would be reluctant to exclude this licence.

IMO "or otherwise indicate what changes have been made" should be retained.

Andrew

whether the or otherwise the licence may require that a modified version
indicate what changes have been made.

Andrew Rens

On 14 February 2015 at 16:00, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
wrote:

> I'm not sure either, but I think that is a good edit.  If changing a
> version number is sufficient, then indicating THAT a change has occurred
> should be sufficient as well.  Simpler is better.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> Apologies for missing the call today.
>>
>> I noted one detail I wanted to clarify about in OD 2.1:
>>
>> "The license may require that modified versions of a licensed work carry
>> a different name or version number from the original work or otherwise
>> indicate what changes have been made."
>>
>> Do we really want "what" in "what changes have been made" and not "that"?
>>
>> Or should we say both? I think the requirement THAT changes have been
>> made is more essential, and I worry that WHAT could be onerous but I'm
>> not sure…
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> On 02/12/2015 06:27 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
>> > Reminder, our OD AC meeting is thirty minutes from now - Thursday,
>> > February 12th at 15:00 UTC.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Herb Lainchbury
>> > <herb at dynamic-solutions.com <mailto:herb at dynamic-solutions.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     Hello All,
>> >
>> >     Our next meeting is Thursday the 12th of February 2015 at 15:00 UTC.
>> >
>> >     That's:
>> >     0700 San Francisco
>> >     1000 New York
>> >     1500 London
>> >     1600 Berlin
>> >
>> >     other time zones:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.worldtimeserver.com/convert_time_in_UTC.aspx?y=2015&mo=2&d=12&h=15&mn=0
>> >
>> >
>> >     We will be discussing:
>> >     * OD 2.1
>> >     * IMF license for data re-use
>> >     * recommendations to Surrey
>> >     * licenses waiting for assessment
>> >     * license approval process and communications
>> >     * open data and APIs
>> >
>> >     Please edit agenda and notes at:
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t1_2_T-PeprvkLVwum5fY-od1hecUowFwaRvuQwDLNw
>> >
>> >     Notes from previous call can be found here:
>> >     _
>> http://opendefinition.org/2015/01/27/notes-from-open-definition-call-december-2014/_
>> >
>> >     Thanks,
>> >     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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
> 250.704.6154
> http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150215/693964db/attachment-0003.html>