[open-government] [psi-workers] [euopendata] Rules + website for Open Data Challenge

Fri Mar 25 06:58:15 GMT 2011

agreed

"encourage" seems sufficient to me, it should appear as a plus for those who
do it, not as a minus for those who don't

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org>wrote:

> Agreed. Lets say that we (strongly?) encourage open source apps from
> multinational teams, but not make it a hard and fast requirement. Same
> with republishing data - we strongly encourage use of a license
> compliant with opendefinition.org for derivative data, but it is not a
> hard and fast requirement.
>
> J.
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:58 AM, François Bancilhon
> <francois.bancilhon at gmail.com> wrote:
> > we want lots of apps in the competition, so the more restriction we put,
> the
> > less apps we'll have
> > we can mention that multinational teams are good
> > we can mention that open source is a +
> > but let's not make it a requirement
> > it's hard enough to build apps and bring them to market, let's not make
> it
> > difficult for them
> > françois
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Paul Meller <paul at openforumeurope.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> MD, coming from organizations that also champion openness (Openforum
> >> Europe and Openforum Academy) I would ideally prefer that all entries
> used
> >> open source software. But I agree with Federico and Lorenzo - that we
> should
> >> be as non-exclusionary as possible. If someone enters a closed app for a
> >> proprietary platform that cannot easily be reused away from that
> platform
> >> then they will have a tougher time winning a prize. We simply need to
> put
> >> openness and reuse high among the criteria for the judges. I think the
> >> Ottowa competition rules strike a good balance; they could serve as a
> good
> >> template for our competition.
> >>
> >> As far as teams from more than one country, I think it'll be too
> >> complicated and will put off some potential entrants. However, reuse of
> the
> >> app in different countries should be a prerequisite (otherwise the
> >> Commission won't see the point.)
> >>
> >> Re. the panel of judges, how about getting one or two venture
> capitalists
> >> or business angels involved? I think one of the criteria for judging the
> >> entries should be entrepreneurship or commercial potential (as others
> have
> >> pointed out this doesn't necessarily contradict openness and reuse
> >> criteria). Who better to judge than investors specialized in spotting
> >> innovative start-ups? Thoughts please.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24 March 2011 15:58, Federico Morando <federico.morando at polito.it>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear All,
> >>>
> >>> I perfectly understand the point of those who advocate open apps, and
> >>> this would be perfectly fine if it was just OKF to organize the
> contest, but
> >>> this is a wider initiative, including several stakeholders and trying
> to
> >>> elicit various kinds of submissions, including submission from
> commercial
> >>> software developers, if they like to participate. Of course, we may
> have ad
> >>> hoc prizes and categories, but - in general - what needs to be open are
> the
> >>> data and not the apps.
> >>>
> >>> As an example, see the rules of some other contests, eg.
> >>> http://www.ottawa.ca/online_services/opendata/contest_rules_en.html#2:
> >>>
> >>> 4.4 Your Application must be hosted and publicly available on your
> >>> website or a third-party website as of the start of the Selection
> Period up
> >>> to and including the end of the Selection Period for public voting and
> >>> judging purposes. The City encourages you to maintain your application
> for a
> >>> period of 6 months following the Contest Period. Contest Winners, in
> >>> consideration of being selected as a Contest winner, must agree to make
> >>> their winning Application publicly available for three months after the
> date
> >>> the release [...]
> >>>
> >>> 4.5 You retain ownership of your Application and are permitted to sell
> >>> the use of your Application commercially after the Contest Period if
> you
> >>> choose to do so.
> >>>
> >>> Since we need visibility, we can ask for open access to the apps, as
> >>> above, for a certain period of time. I think this is what we should
> >>> "require". We may suggest to do more, of course, but I would not put
> this
> >>> "more" as a formal requirement..
> >>>
> >>> My two cents,
> >>>
> >>> Federico
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 03/24/2011 03:06 PM, MD wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Am 24.03.2011 13:36, schrieb Thomas Roessler:
> >>>
> >>> On 24 Mar 2011, at 13:32, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Re: open source + open data in apps, what about 'we strongly encourage
> >>> entrants to use open licenses for code, content and data'?
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we should require open source licenses for the apps (or
> >>> make this part of the evaluation) -- in fact, if somebody came up with
> >>> something that's productized and sold later on, we should welcome that.
> >>>
> >>> I beg to differ. We should think very hard whether we want to actively
> >>> prevent reuse of the results (=useful software code) of an OKF
> competition.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe I am mistaken as I joined OKF only recently, but for
> >>> myunderstanding OKF would shoot itself and its mission in the foot if
> we do
> >>> not -require- reusability of the competition results through open
> source
> >>> licensing. If OKF wants that a lot of data will become open and
> actively
> >>> (re)used, why should we ever selfimpose a limit on the creation and
> >>> availability of tools to do exactly that? From that POV, I even think
> it is
> >>> of strategic importance to OKF's mission.
> >>>
> >>> Somebody may object and say that we hinder companies to participate
> >>> because we kill the for-profit motivation. Well, no, we do not. :-)
> This is
> >>> the general argument brought forward, but the very existence of heaps
> of
> >>> open source software, wikipedia and many other collaboratively created
> >>> digital resources prove the opposite: digital stuff gets created if
> enough
> >>> people have an interest in it. And I am very confident that there are
> people
> >>> out there with an interest to (re)use open data..
> >>>
> >>> Finally, from a legal perspective every participant is the copyright
> >>> holder of the software submitted. They are completely free in licensing
> the
> >>> same piece of software in another way and sell it (so called
> >>> 'dual-licensing'). Yet, plenty of companies do exist today that live
> from
> >>> offering full services aruond FOSS web tools (e.g., typo3, joomla etc.)
> >>>
> >>> This, however, is a competition run by OKF to further the mission of
> OKF.
> >>> Therefore we need to require open licensing for all submissions.
> >>>
> >>> IMO, at least. :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> At the same time I do think we need to say something about the data
> >>> used:  For example, I don't think we're looking for an app that
> required 1M
> >>> EUR upfront investment to acquire the data.
> >>>
> >>> J.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Federico Morando
> >>> <federico.morando at polito.it>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 03/24/2011 01:08 PM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Some key ideas for rules:
> >>>
> >>> * Pan-European angle is strongly encouraged
> >>>
> >>> I surely agree. We may even say that you should use data from at least
> 2
> >>> member states and/or that your app shoul make sense in at least two
> >>> member
> >>> states (e.g. in London and Paris).
> >>>
> >>> * Entries for apps must come from team which contains
> groups/individuals
> >>> from at least 2 EU member states
> >>>
> >>> I don't think that this is necessary: let's put constraints on the
> >>> apps/data
> >>> (as you did above and below) and not on the
> >>> institution/organization/group
> >>> that proposes them... It's a call for apps, not a EU project ;-)
> >>>
> >>> * Repurposed apps are allowed (i.e. an app that exists for London can
> be
> >>> expanded to work for Paris + Torino and entered)
> >>>
> >>> OK, sure!
> >>>
> >>> * Apps must be open source
> >>> * Core data must be freely reusable and derived data must be openly
> >>> licensed
> >>>
> >>> I'm not entirely sure: we may say that this is a plus in the
> evaluation,
> >>> but
> >>> is it a requirement? What needs to the open are the public data (in
> >>> input),
> >>> not necessarily the code/data of the re-users ("derived data")...
> >>> [Personally, I'm sympathetic with this rule - in particular the part
> >>> about
> >>> open source code: it's just that I think it deserves an explicit and
> open
> >>> discussion.]
> >>>
> >>> Thanks and best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Federico
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jonathan Gray
> >>>
> >>> Community Coordinator
> >>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
> >>> http://blog.okfn.org
> >>>
> >>> http://twitter.com/jwyg
> >>> http://identi.ca/jwyg
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> euopendata mailing list
> >>> euopendata at lists.okfn.org
> >>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/euopendata
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> open-government mailing list
> >>> open-government at lists.okfn.org
> >>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-government
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Workers mailing list
> >>> Workers at share-psi.eu
> >>> http://share-psi.eu/mailman/listinfo/workers_share-psi.eu
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Workers mailing list
> >> Workers at share-psi.eu
> >> http://share-psi.eu/mailman/listinfo/workers_share-psi.eu
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > françois Bancilhon
> > twitter.com/fbancilhon
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Gray
>
> Community Coordinator
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
> http://blog.okfn.org
>
> http://twitter.com/jwyg
> http://identi.ca/jwyg
>

-- 
françois Bancilhon
twitter.com/fbancilhon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-government/attachments/20110325/8e58ebc3/attachment-0001.htm>