[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 final draft

[Mike Linksvayer]

On 07/28/2015 02:20 PM, Andrew Rens wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Like Rufus I must offer apologies for not having more to say on this
> definition earlier on.
> 
> I have a concern with 1.1  specifically "The *work* /must/ be provided
> under an open *license"
> 
> *
> This seems to preclude knowledge which is open because it is in the
> public domain.

Explicitly not intended to: above there reads "The term license refers
to the legal conditions under which the work is provided. Where no
license has been offered the term refers to default legal conditions
governing use of the work (for example, copyright or public domain)."

This wording may be improved, conceivably we should use some other word,
and "(as defined in Section 2)" might distract from above "refers to...".

Note current working version now visible at
https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/gh-pages/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown
and http://opendefinition.org/source/open-definition-2.1-dev shows how
it will be rendered on the site.

Mike