Please Attribute the Definition Properly about opendefinition HOT 4 CLOSED

Hi Bruce. First I just wanted to say a huge appreciation - everything here was originally directly derived from the OSI Open Source Definition and was simply an attempt to apply this to data and content rather than software and was originally entitled the Open Knowledge Definition.

Second, I imagine we'd all be absolutely delighted to add any additional attributions you suggest. I should note the current attribution right at the start of the Definition says:

This essential meaning matches that of “open” with respect to software as in the Open Source Definition and is synonymous with “free” or “libre” as in the Definition of Free Cultural Works. The Open Definition was initially derived from the Open Source Definition, which in turn was derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

As i read it you'd like that amended to something like:

This essential meaning matches that of “open” with respect to software as in the Open Source Definition and is synonymous with “free” or “libre” as in the Definition of Free Cultural Works. 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]." [bold indicating the addition]

Re the FAQ - is that intended just to clarify here or would you like us to add some of this in a FAQ on the site?

from opendefinition.

@BrucePerens did you see my response ^^^ - we'd love to amend as appropriate :-)

from opendefinition.

FWIW, I probably added the paragraph that's now in 2.0. I did not do so in order to provide attribution, but context to make it easier for readers to interpret the OD. Also 2.0 makes such context less necessary as it is designed to be more understandable by itself, without being steeped in OSD and similar lore. 1.1 was doubly deficient, mentioning "OSD" as a source of some of its sections, without any indication of what "OSD" is, and yet not being as understandable on its own.

If the problem is with OSI, and perhaps even if not, I suggest in 2.1 we simply change the links to OSD and DFSG and DoFCW to their English Wikipedia articles, which document their origins well. This has the added benefit of making the links themselves translatable.

Names aren't useful to new readers and could go in /history if necessary, which already has an outdated list of contributors to OD pre-1.0.

from opendefinition.

body p { margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt; } 


Hi,

Sorry to take so long to answer mail. Let's please use the
attribution rules that we would use for a piece of software, a book,
or a photo. Which is that the names of the authors are mentioned
along with the work. Because this is certainly what we want all of
the users who use licenses conforming with our definitions to do.

This is an entirely separate thing from a rendition of history.

As far as I can tell, the authors would be:

Bruce Perens and the Debian Developers, for the overall definition.
Open Source Initiative, for Rule 10.
Your Group, for edits necessary to apply the document to your
specific application.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On 10/28/2014 10:57 AM, Mike Linksvayer
  wrote:


  FWIW, I probably added the paragraph that's now in 2.0. I did
    not do so in order to provide attribution, but context to make
    it easier for readers to interpret the OD. Also 2.0 makes such
    context less necessary as it is designed to be more
    understandable by itself, without being steeped in OSD and
    similar lore. 1.1 was doubly deficient, mentioning "OSD" as a
    source of some of its sections, without any indication of what
    "OSD" is, and yet not being as understandable on its own.
  If the problem is with OSI, and perhaps even if not, I suggest
    in 2.1 we simply change the links to OSD and DFSG and DoFCW to
    their English Wikipedia articles, which document their origins
    well. This has the added benefit of making the links themselves
    translatable.
  Names aren't useful to new readers and could go in /history if
    necessary, which already has an outdated list of contributors to
    OD pre-1.0.
  —
    Reply to this email directly or view
      it on GitHub.
  {"@context":<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://schema.org">"http://schema.org"</a>,"@type":"EmailMessage","description":"View this Issue on GitHub","action":{"@type":"ViewAction","url":<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/56#issuecomment-60801166">"https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/issues/56#issuecomment-60801166"</a>,"name":"View Issue"}}

from opendefinition.