2009/3/31 Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>: >> http://www.opendefinition.org/1.0 in a nutshell says: >> 1. You should be able to get the work (in a modifiable source form) > > Unfortunately, the OKD does not even *mention* the Sources of Production.
It says: "The work must also be available in a convenient and modifiable form." Do you have a suggestion for a mod here that would improve this to be more specific (without becoming too verbose?) > A parenthetic mention here is not legally binding. Just to be clear: the OKD is a set of principles *not* a license. There is a list of conformant licenses here: <http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses/> > Unless the Sources (such as uncompressed media) and the supporting > Sources (such as tools needed to reconstruct the end product) are made > available to the Users of that product, then they will not have the > opportunity to build upon that work. I quite agree that sources are crucial. To my knowledge (though I may be wrong) the (open) CC licenses don't really talk about this. Of course for software you've always had a clear source/binary distinction and this has even been written into the licenses. Such a distinction clearly also exists for content (pdf vs. the raw document from which the pdf was made). However, I think it is rather less agreed exactly what is source and what is binary in most areas (one of our retired projects from 4/5 years ago was aiming at trying to address this: <http://okfn.org/iai/>). If you actually wanted something in a license the obvious approach here would be to mod an existing open license (e.g. CC by-sa) with an addendum saying: "And in addition you must make available the source files" (perhaps with some examples of what this would mean). Rufus _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
