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

[Thomas Roessler]

On 24 Mar 2011, at 13:32, Jonathan Gray wrote:

> For me the 'you have to team up with someone in another country' angle
> is quite nice as it means people in different countries will have to
> talk and work together (which is partly what the competition seeks to
> encourage).

On the one hand, I like that idea.  On the other hand, I wonder whether we're overconstraining things.

> 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.

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
>