[okfn-discuss] Re: Open Service Definition

Tue Oct 31 10:18:23 GMT 2006

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:55:50AM +0000, Rufus Pollock wrote:
>   * Its data is open as defined by the open knowledge definition though 
> with the exception that where the data is personal in nature the data 
> need only be made available to the user (i.e. the owner of that account).

I like that.

> >The latter isn't strong enough, I don't think. At least if that means
> >"the code is licensed under an open source license". It has to be
> >that the running code on the server is publically downloadable and
> >that that download is licensed under an open source license.
>
> Again I agree the source code should be F/OSS and must be made available 
>  (this ties into the open knowledge definition's social access 
> requirement: not only should be allowed to get the information but you 
> should actually be able to do so).

Oh, this is interesting! I think what I might be trying to say is that
the source code to the service's server software must be open
knowledge, under the Open Knowledge Definition.

In this case the Open Knowledge Definition has stronger requirements
upon redistributors than the GPL does. The GPL only requires that
you get the source if you get the binary (even version 3, alas).
Whereas the OKD "The work shall be available as a whole and at no more
than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the
Internet without charge"

So, although the OKD explicitly excludes software "because it is
already adequately addressed by previous work", in this case I want to
use it for software. I think that means that I disagree with the OKD
in that one regard - the previous work (i.e. that of the Free Software
Foundation, mainly) does NOT adequately address software being open
knowledge.

So what I think I want to say is that "The software running on
the computers which provide the service must be available 
under an open source software license (as defined by the
Open Source Initiative), AND the source code of that software must
satisfy requirement 1. Access of the Open Knowledge Definition".

Which leads me to wonder if it would be simpler to just say the
software must meet the OKD, although there is the question of
compatibility with existing open source licenses.

> though I'm not sure that calls to non-open web services would be a
> problem. Sure it would render the service pretty useless without
> access to them but one allows F/OSS software to use non F/OSS
> libraries (e.g. Windows APIs ...)

Oh, I think calls to non-open web services are an enormous problem.
They could create an indirect dependency by you upon any closed
knowledge and closed source software. They may make it impossible for
anybody else to implement a similar service using commonly available
data and software. They potentially remove the possibility of
competition, and the ability of you to migrate to a new service.

The difference with F/OSS software was that /all/ it could depend on
is the core of Windows, or whatever. Nowdays you could create a
proprietary service which depended on all sorts of things.

Hmmm, I'm going to get myself into a mess here. Because as soon as you
go along this route, you exclude yourself from using any external API
calls. e.g. Taking credit card transactions, or calling out to a
travel agency API to buy tickets. Which would make much of the open
service software useless, only allowing self contained stuff like
office suites. Which would be bad.

This needs quite some careful though, starting from goals again.

Did you have some sort of drafting process for the Open Knowledge
Definition?

Francis