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

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>