[okfn-discuss] [od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 final draft

[Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou]

Hi Herb and everyone, and thanks a lot for the mailing-list notice.

I seem to have missed the latest updates regarding 1.3 and I'm only
catching up now which I feel a bit guilty about... :/

I've been exploring all the latest commits and I'm worried the
successive changes have lost in the way both references to bulk access
(which was indeed moved to 1.2, but then removed as redundant with "as
a whole"), and to machine-readability (which makes me feel like
current 1.3 could make now pdf acceptable for data for instance)

In exchange we got this final sentence that sounds a bit unclear and
blurred to me : "The work should be provided in the form preferred for
making modifications to it."

Although I understand we want to go forward a more global
opendefinition than one adressing only data, I feel like it will still
be one of the reference documents for data and should then still have
clear precisions regarding them.

So with this in mind, I feel like one of the previous formulation of
Art 1.3 in the rewriting process was a lot more clear and adressing
this matter of expliciting specifically for data these two required
features : "Data must be machine-readable and should be provided in
bulk."
(cf this version
https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/2766b3fd209799993d5ada55a3e7ac92a5d1115c/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown#13-open-format
)


Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou


On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:30 PM, 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 and here and here.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>