Exciting news, will be interested to see what develops from this.
Thanks for the notice, and for prompting me to log in and add a comment.
I wonder if we shall consider extending the notion of openness in OD to the process rather than just the objects (“works” in OD 2.1) of which the process creates.
I’m not in a position to be as involved this time around. That said, I support this effort. I think it’s extremely important.
I first got involved in the Open Definition when I was objecting to the process of finalizing things without checking for missing perspectives first. I hope that does not happen again.
This time around, I would like to be in the position where I’m following this thread and similar — and when anything concrete has been worked out, I will get a chance to check it over and confirm that I feel it’s on the right track. If I see something missing or flawed, I will be able to bring up the topic, and the concern will be heard and appreciated.
This is one of many important points. Such an open process can be used to do this revisiting of the OD itself.
My gratitude to those who will volunteer their time to lead things. This is very important work.
FWIW: besides family commitments and so on, I am working on my own process of making updated understandings of many FLO and related ideas in light of what I’ve learned and seen change over these past years. When I have worked through the noisy stuff I’m already processing, there will be a time I might be ready to contribute more here.
(Now I have to get back to prepping my LibrePlanet talk for this weekend)
I am also excited to see this announcement from OKFN. I’m curious to see what’s the scope of changes to the Definition that will be proposed.
I hope that this quickly is setup as participatory process, and the governance model of the Definition (the Council) is rebooted. The Open Definition was unique in this regard, and we need good examples of participatory governance in the commons.
I’m looking forward to contributing to this process
It seems that the Open Definition has been the object of a session at RightsCon this week at Costa Rica:
What did come out of this? It would be nice to have some notes about the session.
BTW, I’m also curious about the question of how the Open Definition would apply to software. Also, more specifically, the open source vs. free software discussion. Does “open source” meet the Open Definition? Are all of the four essential freedoms of free software encompassed by the Open Definition?
Additionally, should clauses such as the “parallel distribution” present in the ODbL 1.0, which allow the creation of restrictive derivative databases, still be considered “open”?