[okfn-discuss] Taking the Open Service Definition to 1.0

[Rufus Pollock]

On 09/07/08 20:04, Mukundan R wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Support for simple "Open Service"

Just when it looked like we had consensus! That said, I think that Open 
Network Service Definition is still the front-runner. In the interests 
of closing this out if I don't hear any more comments by tomorrow 
evening I'm going to assume that overall everyone is happy to go with ONSD.

> agree with these very valid points. Addressing these issues will truly
> make it "open" which is better than "free" and why to confuse with a
> "free/open"?
> 
> A data which has been "approved" by the provider for use in other places
> and other ways is more open.
> 
> A few clarifications:
> How do we define personal data?

A good question. I guess we could go with how it is traditionally 
defined as data which provides information about you and which you would 
expect to not be provided to a third party without your permission. 
However I'm sure we could do better -- though I think for the purposes 
of the definition as it stands, given that personal data must be 
provided to its 'owner', simple 'personal data' will suffice.

> The definition assumes API's to be by default Open. what would happen if
> the source was LGPL based? Do API's still remain open?

I'm not sure how LGPL would make a difference here. No one could make 
the APIs proprietary without violating the underlying F/OSS licence.

Regards,

Rufus