headers
Thorsten Glaser | 1 Sep 07:46
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Open Software Service Definition

Dave Crossland dixit:

>the combined licenses list is an unambiguous way of
>describing what is and is not FOSS.

This is wrong: FOSS is much more than the licences whose submitters’
noses are pleasant to the OSI.

>By using boolean AND

I don’t disagree with the AND, I disagree with the OSI.

//mirabilos
--

-- 
Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font.	-- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Dave Crossland | 1 Sep 13:08
Gravatar

Re: Open Software Service Definition

2008/9/1 Thorsten Glaser <tg@...>:
> Dave Crossland dixit:
>
>>the combined licenses list is an unambiguous way of
>>describing what is and is not FOSS.
>
> This is wrong: FOSS is much more than the licences whose submitters'
> noses are pleasant to the OSI.

While I am no fan of the OSI, I think it is fair to say that they are
very influential and most people refer to FOSS as OS.

>>By using boolean AND
>
> I don't disagree with the AND, I disagree with the OSI.

I think its important to be inclusive instead of divisive, while
maintaining a strong position on freedom.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 1 Sep 15:34

IRC meetings...

I am going to start spending time on the #okfn IRC channel at oftc.net 
on Wednesday evenings at 1900 BST. If anyone has anything OKF related 
they'd like to discuss, propose, or tinker away at - please pop in and 
say hi!

As well as using an IRC client, you connect using the web-based service 
Mibbit at:

   http://ur1.ca/4fh

Possible things to start with this coming Wednesday:

   * OKF events - including events in London this autumn and OKCon 2009;
   * moving forward with CKAN;
   * any open knowledge projects (including OKF projects);
   * re-designing the main OKF site;
   * an open knowledge competition?

I've put a tentative agenda at:

   http://okfn.org/wiki/meetings/2008-09-03

It would be great to see people there!

Jonathan
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 1 Sep 16:21

OKF main site re-design?

I've been talking with various people about rehauling the main OKF site 
(okfn.org).

Bits of it need pruning, and I think the whole thing could do with a bit 
of re-structuring to make it easier for people to understand what the 
OKF is about.

I quite like the idea of a severely pared down main page - perhaps with 
a few basic icons (!) linking to main resources, a one line mission 
statement, and so on. It would also be great to have a few more useful 
things on the site. (E.g. an events calendar - which we've been talking 
about for a while..)

What do people think? How should it look? Any suggestions for things to 
use? Anyone keen to help?

Jonathan
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jonathan Gray | 1 Sep 16:54

CKAN for UK PSI

Thought these blog posts might be of interest if people hadn't already 
seen them:

http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/packaging-data-for-reuse/
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/08/taggov/

Jonathan
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Bywater | 1 Sep 19:20
Favicon

Re: OKF main site re-design?

Jonathan Gray wrote:
> I've been talking with various people about rehauling the main OKF site 
> (okfn.org).
>
> Bits of it need pruning, and I think the whole thing could do with a bit 
> of re-structuring to make it easier for people to understand what the 
> OKF is about.
>
> I quite like the idea of a severely pared down main page - perhaps with 
> a few basic icons (!) linking to main resources, a one line mission 
> statement, and so on. It would also be great to have a few more useful 
> things on the site. (E.g. an events calendar - which we've been talking 
> about for a while..)
>
> What do people think? How should it look? Any suggestions for things to 
> use? Anyone keen to help?
>   

I'm always happy to help! :-)

Think we could usefully list the interactions you want to support, 
identify a core and make them work as well as possible.

Your suggestion for the main page would be the lid on this pan. :-)

J.

> Jonathan
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rufus Pollock | 1 Sep 20:01
Gravatar

Re: Open Software Service Definition

On 30/08/08 23:01, Dave Crossland wrote:
> Hi,

First up: thanks for these excellent comments Dave.

> Over on the fsb@... list, I just posted the following:
> 
> 2008/8/30 Evan Prodromou <evan@...>:
>> ...and on the Open Software Service Definition:

[snip]

>>> 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

Sounds reasonable -- plus those don't seem to be major licenses so them 
getting excluded isn't really going to make anyone unhappy I would 
imagine ...

>>> B. Made publicly available."
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 603 comments |
headers
Dave Crossland | 1 Sep 20:13
Gravatar

Re: Open Software Service Definition

2008/9/1 Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@...>:
> On 30/08/08 23:01, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> First up: thanks for these excellent comments Dave.

No probs :-)

>>>> 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
>
> Sounds reasonable -- plus those don't seem to be major licenses so them
> getting excluded isn't really going to make anyone unhappy I would imagine

Yes, Fedora confirmed there were 0 programs with these licenses in its
licensing audit last year, as there was some efforts to get Fedora on
the GNU Project's Recommended GNU/Linux Distributions list. I'm not
sure where that is stuck.

>>>> B. Made publicly available."
>>
>> This should be "Made available to its users."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thorsten Glaser | 2 Sep 08:52
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Open Software Service Definition

Dave Crossland dixit:

>While I am no fan of the OSI, I think it is fair to say that they are
>very influential and most people refer to FOSS as OS.

Sure, but even the OSI themselves say that being OSI approved is only
a subclass of being OSD compliant Open Source (tm) software. They
admit to willingly not approve Open Source (tm) licences.

//mirabilos
--

-- 
Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font.	-- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Iain Emsley | 2 Sep 13:39

Wired Business blog

Afternoon,

I've just seen this article on Wired which I thought might be of interest:
http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/09/open-source-tex.html

Iain

--

Iain Emsley

Blog: www.yatterings.com
Mobile: 07942 259725
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane