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 [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
