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

[Patrick Anderson]

Sorry to chime in so late, but I have a question/concern about using
the word 'Network'.

What about a situation where the user is utilizing the code or data
stored on a machine that they do not own, but where they are sitting
at that same terminal?

For instance, I've thought of a "Free as in Freedom" cafe where
customers could rent time on computers to use Free Software or rent a
mini-theatre room where they could watch movies that are under a
license permitting such performances.

I would want those customers to be guaranteed an opportunity to make
"at cost" copies of that code and data, but notice it wouldn't be over
a network.

Thanks,
Patrick

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>