Jorge, acho que podemos criar um pad, irmos melhorando juntos, e depois subimos no repositório da open defnition
https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition Seria legal com o lançamento da versão 2.0 <https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/gh-pages/od/2.0/en/index.markdown> fazermos uma melhoria da versão em português do Brasil <http://opendefinition.org/od/1.1/pt-br/>, inclusive usarmos 'conhecimento livre' ao invés de 'conhecimento aberto'. Abraços, Tom 2014-10-07 14:17 GMT-03:00 Jorge Machado <[email protected]>: > Olá pessoas, > > Foi iniciada uma revisão da Definição de "aberto" > (http://opendefinition.org/od/), confome msg mais abaixo. > > É uma oportunidade para corrigir duas coisas no que se refere a "acesso": > - parte da redação induz a um erro tanto de interpretação sobre o > significado de "one-time reproduction cost" (vejam as traduções ao > português e ao espanhol) > - e outro aspecto de fundo político ao aceitar *o acesso pago como > "aberto"* (incrível!). Essa "preferência" por ser "sem custos" tem que > cair. Tem que descer no muro :). No final, está pior que a definição de > acesso aberto da OAI > ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Open_Access_Initiative#Definition_of_open_access > ). > > O sublinhado é meu: > > > 1.2 Access > > The *work* shall be available as a whole and at no more than _a > reasonable one-time reproduction cost_, _preferably__downloadable > via the Internet __without charge_. Any additional information > necessary for license compliance (such as names of contributors > required for compliance with attribution requirements) /must/ also > accompany the work. > > */Nova redação/**:* > > > 1.2 Access > > The *work* shall be available as a whole and without_technical > obstacles, preferably downloadable via the Internet_. Any additional > information necessary for license compliance (such as names of > contributors required for compliance with attribution requirements) > /must/ also accompany the work. > > Talvez não seja o que exatamente queriam comunicar quando escreveram a > primeira versão, mas essa outra redação me parece bem mais razoável. > > Outra pergunta é se vale a pena elaborar uma porposta da OKBr ou se > fazemos contribuições individuais para a consulta. > > abs > Jorge/ > / > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Assunto: [okfn-discuss] ANN: Open Definition v2.0 Released - Major > Update of Essential Standard for Open Data and Open Content > Data: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:28:45 +0100 > De: Rufus Pollock <[email protected]> > Responder a: Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list > <[email protected]> > Para: okfn-discuss <[email protected]> > > > > Hi All, > > > Here's the announce for the Open Definition v2.0. It is also posted on > the blog at: > > > > http://blog.okfn.org/2014/10/07/open-definition-v2-0-released-major-update-of-essential-standard-for-open-data-and-open-content/ > > > Please do share this announce with relevant communities and organizations! > > > Regards, > > > Rufus > > > *ANN: Open Definition v2.0 Released - Major Update of Essential Standard > for Open Data and Open Content* > > > Today Open Knowledge and the Open Definition Advisory Council are > pleased to announce the release of version 2.0 of the Open Definition > <http://opendefinition.org/>. The Definition “sets out principles that > define openness in relation to data and content†and plays a key role > in supporting the growing open data ecosystem <http://okfn.org/opendata/>. > > > Recent years have seen an explosion in the release of open data by > dozens of governments including the G8. Recent estimates by McKinsey put > the potential benefits of open data at over $1 trillion and others > estimates put benefits at more than 1% of global GDP. > > > However, these benefits are at significant risk both from quality > problems such as “open-washing†(non-open data being passed off as > open) and from fragmentation of the open data ecosystem due to > incompatibility between the growing number of “open†licenses. > > > The Open Definition <http://opendefinition.org/>eliminates these risks > and ensures we realize the full benefits of open by  guaranteeing > quality and preventing incompatibility. See this recent post for more > about why the Open Definition is so important > < > http://blog.okfn.org/2014/09/30/why-the-open-definition-matters-for-open-data-quality-compatibility-and-simplicity/ > >. > > > Created in 2005, this new version of the Open Definition > <http://opendefinition.org/>is the most significant revision in the > Definition’s nearly ten-year history and reflects more than a year of > discussion and consultation with the community including input from > experts involved in open data, open access, open culture, open > education, open government, and open source. As well as major > revisions to the text there is a new process for reviewing licenses > which has been trialled with major governments including the UK. > > > The Open Definition was published in 2005 by Open Knowledge and is > maintained today by an expert Advisory Council. This new version of the > Open Definition <http://opendefinition.org/>is the most significant > revision in the Definition’s nearly ten-year history. > > > It reflects more than a year of discussion and consultation with the > community including input from experts involved in open data, open > access, open culture, open education, open government, and open source. > Whilst there are no changes to the core principles, the Definition has > been completely reworked with a new structure and revised text as well > as a new process for reviewing licenses (which has been trialled with > governments including the UK). > > > Herb Lainchbury, Chair of the Open Definition Advisory Council > <http://opendefinition.org/advisory-council/>, said: > > > ‘The Open Definition describes the principles that define > “openness†in relation to data and content, and is used to assess > whether a particular licence meets that standard. A key goal of this > new version is to make it easier to assess whether the growing number of > open licenses actually make the grade. The more we can increase > everyone’s confidence in their use of open works,  the more they will > be able to focus on creating value with open works.’ > > > Rufus Pollock, President and Founder of Open Knowledge > <http://www.okfn.org>said: > > > ‘Since we created the Open Definition <http://opendefinition.org/>in > 2005 it has played a key role in the growing open data and open content > communities. It acts as the ‘gold standard’ for open data and > content guaranteeing quality and preventing incompatibility. As a > standard, the Open Definition plays a key role in underpinning the > ‘open knowledge economy’ with a potential value that runs into the > hundreds of billions - or even trillions - worldwide.’ > > > What’s New > > In process for more than a year, the new version was collaboratively > <https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition>and openly > <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/>developed > <https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition>withinput from e > <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/>xperts involved in open > access, open culture, open data, open education, open government, open > source and wiki communities. The new version of the definition: > > > * > > Has a complete rewrite of the core principles - preserving their > meaning but using simpler language and clarifying key aspects. > > * > > Introduces a clear separation of the definition of an open license > from an open work (with the latter depending on the former). This > not only simplifies the conceptual structure but provides a proper > definition of open license and makes it easier to “self-assess†> licenses for conformance with the Open Definition. > > * > > The definition of an Open Work <http://opendefinition.org/od/>within > the Open Definition is now a set of three key principles: > > o > > Open License: The workmust be available under an open license > (as defined in the following section but this includes freedom > to use, build on, modify and share). > > o > > Access: The work shall be available as a whole and at no more > than a reasonable one-time reproduction cost, preferably > downloadable via the Internet without charge > > o > > Open Format: The workmust be provided in a convenient and > modifiable form such that there are no unnecessary technological > obstacles to the performance of the licensed rights. > Specifically, data should be machine-readable, available in > bulk, and provided in an open format or, at the very least, can > be processed with at least one free/libre/open-source software > tool. > > * > > Includes improved license approval process to make it easier for > license creators to check conformance of their license with the Open > Definition and to encourage reuse of existing open licenses > (rrareuse and outlines the process for submitting a license so that > it can be checked for conformance against the Open Definition. > > > More Information > > * > > For more information about the Open Definition including the updated > version visit: http://opendefinition.org/ > > * > > For background on why the Open Definition matters, read the recent >  article ‘Why the Open Definition > Matters’< > http://blog.okfn.org/2014/09/30/why-the-open-definition-matters-for-open-data-quality-compatibility-and-simplicity/ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-br mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-br > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-br > > -- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre http://br.okfn.org
_______________________________________________ okfn-br mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-br Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-br
