[okfn-discuss] Open Service Definition (revisited)

[Francis Irving]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:59:00AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> Sadly, open everywhere is fairly meaningless; the term is badly
> overloaded. My own current private draft uses 'User-Centric Service
> Definition' to avoid the ambiguity around 'open', but I'm not happy
> with that route either. Suggestions welcome :)

Maybe "Libre Service Definition", despite its problems in English. Or
perhaps "Freedom Service Definition".
 
> Now, you can argue that the point is not to be successful, but to
> protect moral considerations to the extent that they exist. This
> appears to be Prof. Moglen's position on the SaaS/freedom discussion.
> In this sense, the proposed OK service definition is probably
> sufficient. But my sense is that in a hosted world that is
> insufficient to have practical traction, and I'd like to explore that
> some more before giving up on it as an impossibility. :)

Worth trying definitely - I'm looking forward to seeing what you come
up with.

Francis