Hi, Over on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, I just posted the following:
2008/8/30 Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > ...and on the Open Software Service Definition: > > http://www.opendefinition.org/ossd > > > The Definition > > > > An open software service is one: > > > > 1. Whose data is open as defined by the open knowledge > > definition (http://opendefinition.org/1.0/) 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). > > > > 2. Whose source code is: > > A. Free/Open Source Software (that is available under a > > license in the OSI or FSF approved list This should be boolean AND instead of OR because the FSF and OSI lists diverge slightly; there are some OSI licenses - Artistic License 1.0, NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3, Reciprocal Public License - that the FSF state are non-free. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical > > B. Made publicly available." This should be "Made available to its users." Requiring publication is highly contentious. In the early "Emacs commune" days RMS decided it was unethical to force people to publish their changes, which is why the GPL doesn't (no link, I cuss printed books, I believe I read this in 'Free For All' or 'Rebel Code'). The eCos Public License that does what RMS once did, and the Reciprocal Public License that requires publication, is criticised at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense More recently, debian-legal have the desert island/dissident tests [1] that, while not as important as the FSF FSD and OSI OSD, are still worth thinking about and should not be disregarded lightly. And most recently, the Affero GPLv3 says that the _users_ of network software must be able to access it via the network - which I think is striking the correct balance, although some d-l folks like MJ Ray don't like it. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance My suggestion: An open software service is one: 1. Whose data is open as defined by the open knowledge definition (http://opendefinition.org/1.0/) 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). 2. Whose source code is Free/Open Source as defined by both the FSF and OSI (that is available under a license in the OSI and the FSF approved lists) and is available to the users of the service. -- Regards, Dave _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
