[od-discuss] Open Definition Telecon 15:00 UTC Thursday 2015-02-12
Andrew Rens
andrewrens at gmail.com
Sun Feb 15 17:40:33 UTC 2015
I certainly agree that language should include "that" and "what" - just
don't think "what" should be excluded.
Andrew Rens
On 15 February 2015 at 12:38, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150215/4117def5/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list