[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 final draft alignment with other Open Knowledge content

Sun Jul 19 22:16:14 UTC 2015

We discussed this on the OD telecon in June.  The feeling was that the
definition should lead - and the other references would be brought into
alignment.  So, I am considering the words in this final draft the proposed
canonical text.  I don't want to suggest there is, but if there is an issue
with what is there I suggest we sort it out in as an OD discussion and once
it is published then we can update the other sources.  If you want to align
the other sources right now, I don't see any harm in that since the current
summary in the OD has been discussed at some length.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Stephen Gates <stephen.gates at me.com> wrote:

> The open definition and the words on https://okfn.org/opendata/ should
> align.
>
> The open data census refers to https://okfn.org/opendata/ for the meaning
> of open.
>
> The summary and follow on text on this page should be checked for
> alignment with version 2.1
>
> Open Definition 2.1 summary
>
> *Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share it
> — subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness.*
>
> On https://okfn.org/opendata/ summary
>
> ‘Open knowledge’ is any content, information or data that people are free
> to use, re-use and redistribute — without any legal, technological or
> social restriction.
>
>
> Thanks
> Stephen Gates
>
>
>
> On 18 Jul 2015, at 4:30 am, Herb Lainchbury <herb.lainchbury at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> After further discussion, consideration and much input from various people
> in the community I think we're ready to consider the current Open
> Definition draft 2.1 dev for acceptance.
>
> You can find the current draft 2.1 dev version here:
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-
> 2.1-dev.markdown
>
> The actual diff can be viewed here: http://git.io/vm6W8
> (note: this diff includes all changes to the repository so use the "Files
> Changed" tab to see just the changes to the
> "source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown" file.
>
> The main discussions centred around the preamble as well as clauses 1.3,
> 2.2.3, 2.2.5 and 2.2.6.
>
> Most of the issues addressed are also documented here:
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=label%3A2.1
>
>
> Please pay particular attention to 1.3 in your review as that clause was
> one of the main reasons for this update and we want to ensure it is as good
> as we can make it.  See discussions here
> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-November/thread.html>
> and here
> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-November/thread.html>
> and here <https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/68>.
>
> An attribution clause has also been added to the definition to recognize
> the work the definition is based on.
>
>
> Please submit any further comments on the od-discuss list.
>
> Please take this opportunity to raise any final objections to voting on
> final acceptance of this draft.  If no objections are received I will call
> for a vote in approximately one week.
>
>
> Please disseminate this note further as you see fit and if you know of
> another list that we should notify, please let me know.
>
> Thank you,
> Herb Lainchbury
> Chair, Open Definition Advisory Council
>
> ----------
>
> In summary, the changes from 2.0 to the current 2.1dev are:
>
> Preamble
>
> - reference to OSD changed to wikipedia
>
> - change to summary section to simplify and improve clarity of the term
> **license**
>
> 1.
>
> - fixed formatting typo
>
> 1.2
>
> - from shall to must and from preferable to should
>
> 1.3
>
> - from "or" to "and"
>
> - from "processed" to "fully processed"
>
> - removed bulk suggestion - already covered in 1.2
>
> - added *should* be provided in form preferred for making modifications to
> it
>
> 2.
>
> - added “should be compatible”
>
> - fixed formatting typo
>
> 2.2
>
> - changed shall to must
>
> 2.2.1
>
> - added missing comma
>
> 2.2.3
>
> -The **license** *may* require copies or derivatives of a licensed work to
> remain under a license the same as or similar to the original.
>
> +The **license** *may* require distributions of the work to remain under
> the same license or a similar license.
>
> 2.2.5
>
> -The **license** *may* require modified works to be made available in a
> form preferred for further modification.
>
> +The **license** *may* require that anyone distributing the work provide
> recipients with access to the preferred form for making modifications.
>
> 2.2.6
>
> -The **license** *may* prohibit distribution of the work in a manner where
> technical measures impose restrictions on the exercise of otherwise allowed
> rights.
>
> +The **license** *may* require that distributions of the work remain free
> of any technical measures that would restrict the exercise of otherwise
> allowed rights.
>
>
> Attribution
> +The Open Definition was initially derived from the Open Source
> Definition, which in turn was derived from the original Debian Free
> Software Guidelines, and the Debian Social Contract of which they are a
> part, which were created by Bruce Perens and the Debian Developers. Bruce
> later used the same text in creating the Open Source Definition. This
> definition is substantially derivative of those documents and retains their
> essential principles. Richard Stallman was the first to push the ideals of
> software freedom which we continue.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Herb
>
>

-- 
--
Herb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150719/b4deeb3d/attachment-0003.html>