[od-discuss] Open Definition Telecon 15:00 UTC Thursday 2015-02-12
Aaron Wolf
wolftune at riseup.net
Sun Feb 15 17:38:51 UTC 2015
We could say "that or what" or some similar combination that indicates both variations are acceptable. With only the "what", I don't see precise reference to the "that" version being acceptable…
On 02/15/2015 08:11 AM, Andrew Rens wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:250.704.6154>
> http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list