Open Knowledge Foundation Activity Aggregator

May 10, 2008

okfn-discuss Mailing List

Re: [open-hw] Classification of openhardware

I've also been wondering about this. I recently joined this list and am catching up on discussions and projects in this area. I'm from the Open Knowledge Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation founded in 2004 and dedicated to promoting open knowledge in all its forms. Our Open Knowledge Definition provides criteria for openness in knowledge (including copyrightable content and data). http://opendefinition.org/ http://opendefinition.org/1.0 We've also got a draft Open Service Definition: http://opendefinition.org/osd It would be great to work together towards a shared definition for Open Hardware, if such a definition would be useful. We've just bounced a few emails about this on our discuss list [1] and I've started dumping links on a page on our wiki: http://okfn.org/wiki/OpenHardware Perhaps a good way to proceed would be to gather together some examples to try to clarify what we mean by open hardware, and what any definition would do (if we need one)? I've carbon copied th

by Jonathan Gray at May 10, 2008 10:21 PM

Re: Open Hardware

Many thanks for this Julian! I'm still not clear on whether or not there are distinctive legal issues that arise in relation to publishing prototypes, designs, etc. or whether these are adequately covered by the GPL, or other (interoperable) open licenses for text, images, and other aspects of the designs that are copyrightable. Perhaps it would help to draft a list of examples - I might suggest this to the relevant lists (and cc correspondence here - if people think that's appropriate!). Also any advice for reading in this area would be much appreciated! (And feel free to add stuff to the wiki page at http://okfn.org/wiki/OpenHardware ...) Jonathan Julian Priest wrote:

by Jonathan Gray at May 10, 2008 09:58 PM

May 09, 2008

Open Knowledge Foundation Weblog

Beyond Strong and Weak: Towards a Typology of Open Access

Over the past week or so there has been a flurry of posts about ’strong’ and ‘weak’ open access, including the following:

Peter Suber and Stevan Harnad both agree:

The term “open access” is now widely used in at least two senses. For some, “OA” literature is digital, online, and free of charge. It removes price barriers but not permission barriers. For others, “OA” literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of unnecessary copyright and licensing restrictions. It removes both price barriers and permission barriers. It allows reuse rights which exceed fair use.

There are two good reasons why our central term became ambiguous. Most of our success stories deliver OA in the first sense, while the major public statements from Budapest, Bethesda, and Berlin (together, the BBB definition of OA) describe OA in the second sense.

As you know, Stevan Harnad and I have differed about which sense of the term to prefer –he favoring the first and I the second. What you may not know is that he and I agree on nearly all questions of substance and strategy, and that these differences were mostly about the label. While it may seem that we were at an impasse about the label, we have in fact agreed on a solution which may please everyone. At least it pleases us.

We have agreed to use the term “weak OA” for the removal of price barriers alone and “strong OA” for the removal of both price and permission barriers. To me, the new terms are a distinct improvement upon the previous state of ambiguity because they label one of those species weak and the other strong. To Stevan, the new terms are an improvement because they make clear that weak OA is still a kind of OA.

On this new terminology, the BBB definition describes one kind of strong OA. A typical funder or university mandate provides weak OA. Many OA journals provide strong OA, but many others provide weak OA.

Furthermore, Peter Suber adds:

As soon as we move beyond the removal of price barriers to the removal of permission barriers, we enter the range of strong OA. Hence, an article with a CC-NC license is strong OA because it allows some copying and redistribution beyond fair use (even if it doesn’t allow all copying and redistribution). My own preference is still for the CC-BY license, but we shouldn’t speak as if CC-NC were not strong OA or as if there were just one kind of strong OA.

According to this schema, a cost free publication counts as weak open access, and a publication licensed under a CC-NC license counts as strong open access. Stevan Harnad agrees with the distinction but suggests the need for ‘value-neutral’ terms to describe it - suggesting ‘basic’ and ‘full’.

Its worth adding to this discussion that there is also Open Definition compliant open access, which I understand is equivalent to BBB open access and which is more permissive than ’strong’ or ‘full’ open access. As we blogged a couple of weeks back - anything with the SPARC Europe Seal will be open access in this sense.

As Peter Murray-Rust comments:

Open Source has the OSI which determines whether ot not a given licence is OS. Open Knowledge after only a short time of volunteers has the OKF and has an agreed definition and a list of conformant licences.

Scholarly publications, as literary works, constitute knowledge and hence are covered by the OKD. A journal, monograph or any other publication can still be ‘open as in the OKD’ as with other forms of knowledge. Debates about open access aside, demarcating between knowledge that is ‘open’ and ‘closed’ is precisely what the OKD is there for!

It will be interesting to see what emerges as the new classificatory scheme for open access, and where OKD compliant publications sit on the spectrum. Perhaps these will be called ‘OKD/BBB compliant open access’ journals, or suchlike.

by Jonathan Gray at May 09, 2008 02:01 AM

okfn-discuss Mailing List

Re: Open Hardware

Many thanks for this! I narrowly missed the Maker Faire here in San Francisco. There is a lot of interesting stuff there, but re: open hardware the focus would be exclusively on fully open stuff. I'll suggest the possibility of OKF involvement with some of the work going on in this area. Exactly - and also to have an OKD-like standard for hardware projects. I don't know whether there are any issues here - or a whether a design could fairly unproblematically be said to be OKD compliant, just as with other kinds of knowledge. I'm not sure about the neighbouring rights/legislation - such as patent laws. If the OKD can be applied to open hardware related knowledge (I think it would be useful to unpack what this could be so we can look at the different pieces on a case by case basis - blueprints, designs, images, text, procedures, etc.) - it could be useful to promote this in relation to emerging work on open hardware. This would help to ensure interoperability, openness proper, and so on. I

by Jonathan Gray at May 09, 2008 12:11 AM

May 08, 2008

okfn-discuss Mailing List

Re: 8 Principles of Open Government Data

We alluded to the 8 principles in our response to the Library of Congress on the Future of Bibliographic control report last December: http://blog.okfn.org/2007/12/19/response-to-the-future-of-bibliographic-control-draft-from-the-library-of-congress/ http://www.okfn.org/wiki/FutureOfBibliographicControl I've posted to the open-government Google group list several times about this and other stuff. It would be great to hear what the group has been up to, what it has planned, and how we might be able to collaborate! Jonathan

by Jonathan Gray at May 08, 2008 11:24 PM

Re: 8 Principles of Open Government Data

Yes, at the time i bit my tongue about this and, taking these "8 Principles" on their own terms, agreed with Rufus that 5-8, i would say 4 as well, overlap with the Open Knowledge Definition and the latter seems better framed in terms of *usefulness* (e.g. a license matches these criteria, or it doesn't in which case question it). The first three "principles" here are "What We Want" rather than anything specifically to do with "Open". Yes, we would all like many sources of data to be as Complete (with recourse to "privacy" argued in every case rather than used as a non-disclose for free clause) as Timely and as close to the original Source in "unrefined" form, as possible. To talk about "Government data" in this way is to talk in terms that don't apply to most of us outside North America. Is NASA or ESA data "government data"? Is data coming from a Cambridge laboratory or a state-subsidised but privately run transport network "government" data? Clearly there is a spectrum of different kinds of businesse

by jo-APKGCNCGvtU< at >public.gmane.org at May 08, 2008 10:31 PM

Re: Open Hardware

I added a couple of links to work coming from Free Networks communities in this area. Most of it's covered by the wikipedia resources you have there. The RONJA project is a classic reference point, its creator talked on the WSFII.London "Open Hardware" track. http://publication.nodel.org/node/116/print in partic. reads as "notes towards an open hardware definition" Another reference point would be the "maker" scene as hyped by O'Reilly, but that seems more focused on adapting and combining "proprietary" hardware projects. I think that if there's work on, or movement towards, such an effort in the communities you have contact with, OKF could usefully promote that, host or link to drafts from opendefinition.org, etc. HOWEVER. I want to ask what these things are useful for, and probably caution against asking for too much definition, especially in a "legal" context. Is an Open Hardware Definition envisaged to be defensive, in the sense of "keeping open libre"? Defensive against people who may be "passin

by jo-APKGCNCGvtU< at >public.gmane.org at May 08, 2008 09:49 PM

Open Hardware

Hi all, A friend and I have long been interested in the idea of 'open hardware'. I wondered whether anyone on the list knew about any legal work in this area. Apart from using open licenses for copyrightable aspects of a design, blueprint, procedure (text, images etc.) - what other legal issues are there? I've started adding relevant links at: http://okfn.org/wiki/OpenHardware Do people think that the OKF could have a role to play in this area? E.g. in supporting an 'open hardware definition' - or similar? I'm going to start contacting relevant groups and mailing lists over the next few weeks - as soon as I get time! Warm regards, Jonathan

by Jonathan Gray at May 08, 2008 08:46 PM

Re: 8 Principles of Open Government Data

Much appreciate the heads-up on this Schuyler. As you surmise we did pick up on this when it first came out: I think Jonathan Gray is on their mailing list but I don't know how successful we were in getting in contact, particularly to chat about the potential inter-relation of these 8 Principles and the Open Knowledge Definition. Any assistance in that direction would be most welcome in fact. ~rufus

by Rufus Pollock at May 08, 2008 08:44 AM

May 07, 2008

Open Textbook Weblog

Open Text Book Subversion Repository

We have started to mirror some of the LaTeX source of textbooks listed on this site at the Open Text Book subversion repository:

More about this service can be found at the KnowledgeForge project page.

We hope the respository will make it easier to automatically grab open textbook material, and that eventually textbook authors will be able to add the latest versions of their work to it!

If anyone would like to help out with adding material - please don’t hesitate to get in touch!

by Jonathan Gray at May 07, 2008 07:17 AM

May 06, 2008

Shakespeare Trac Timeline

Changeset [152]: [www]: change to use KForge/CKAN style layout for web interface. * Some …

[www]: change to use KForge/CKAN style layout for web interface.

  • Some minor mods to remove a few unused items
  • Use url_for to generate all internal links
  • To avoid copying all style files once again have used svn:externals to pull them in from m.okfn.org in main okf repo.

May 06, 2008 08:34 PM

Changeset [151]: [shakespeare/cli][s]: move cli code from bin into shakespeare.cli and …

[shakespeare/cli][s]: move cli code from bin into shakespeare.cli and run/install it using paste.scripts entry point in setup.py.

  • At same time: deprecate runserver command with info about using paster serve.

May 06, 2008 08:23 PM

okfn-discuss Mailing List

Re: 413 Request Entity Too Large

Sorry, wrong list. Please ignore! On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 10:33:07AM +0100, Francis Irving wrote:

by Francis Irving at May 06, 2008 11:04 AM

413 Request Entity Too Large

Hiya! I'm getting this error, when doing a "svn update" in a large directory. svn: REPORT request failed on '/ukparse/svn/!svn/vcc/default' svn: REPORT of '/ukparse/svn/!svn/vcc/default': 413 Request Entity Too Large (https://project.knowledgeforge.net) Not sure, but https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39154 implies it might be an Apache config error on KnowledgeForge. Do you have your SSLVerifyClient line in the wrong place? Any other ideas? Francis

by Francis Irving at May 06, 2008 10:33 AM

May 05, 2008

okfn-discuss Mailing List

Re: distributed FS

Apropos of this last link, under "Rendering of geo locations using **open data**": if you go to OpenStreetMap (http://openstreetmap.org/) and click on the new "Export" tab, you can generate a smidge of HTML for importing an OSM map into an iframe on any web page using OpenLayers. I've updated the wiki page to reflect this. SDE

by Schuyler Erle at May 05, 2008 07:40 PM

May 03, 2008

KForge Trac Timeline

Changeset [1247]: [plugin][m]: move to locating and loading plugins via …

[plugin][m]: move to locating and loading plugins via setuptools/pkg_resources support for entry point discovery (using 'kforge.plugins' as entry point category).

May 03, 2008 04:13 PM

Changeset [1246]: [xs]: set DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE env variable in soleInstance.py so we can …

[xs]: set DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE env variable in soleInstance.py so we can just import this anywhere without having to set this up first.

  • This was motivated by desire to start using nosetests a bit (bin/kforge-test sets this at top of file)
  • However DJANGO_... is standard we might as well set this up in as central a place as possible.

May 03, 2008 04:08 PM

Shakespeare Trac Timeline

okfn-discuss Mailing List

8 Principles of Open Government Data

Probably you all have seen this before, but for the open geodata campaigners out there, here's a fairly nice and succinct set of core principles articulated around a definition of "open government data", courtesy of the EveryBlock blog: http://resource.org/8_principles.html SDE

by Schuyler Erle at May 03, 2008 01:17 AM

May 02, 2008

okfn-discuss Mailing List

Visualisation for corpwatch

Ian Elwood from Corpwatch, who were recently involved in the Netsquared challenge [1], has asked me whether I knew anyone who might be interested in helping them with their visualisatation: Anyone who might be interested, or might know someone who'd be interested, please get in touch. Warm regards, Jonathan [1] See: http://www.netsquared.org/2008/conference/projects/corpwatch-government-data-corporations http://www.netsquared.org/blog/ian-elwood/technical-specifications-corpwatch-mashup

by Jonathan Gray at May 02, 2008 04:10 PM

Re: distributed FS

FWIW the developer (or the one I know of) runs the p2p-hackers list. I made a joke about his triangle at the beginning of our meeting. On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Rufus Pollock at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

by Mike Linksvayer at May 02, 2008 12:07 AM

May 01, 2008

okfn-discuss Mailing List

Re: distributed FS

Dear Luis, Really great you should mention this as I too came across allmydata just a few weeks ago and even got it installed. I'd be really keen to start a mini free/open data/services grid of some kind. This has been something we've been thinking about more generally at the OKFN for quite some time [1][2] and just a few weeks ago when Evan Prodromou asked about storing distributed backups of vinisimo I noted the dearth of such facilities [3]. ~rufus [1]: [2]: [3]: On 01/05/08 05:37, Luis Villa wrote:

by Rufus Pollock at May 01, 2008 07:47 PM

CKAN Trac Timeline

RestfulAPI edited by rgrp

Make into a page containing only for API users only (Future development and original proposal info has been moved to separate page and some refactoring)

(diff)

May 01, 2008 05:54 PM

RestfulAPIDevelopment edited by rgrp

move future development and original proposal stuff here from RestfulAPI

May 01, 2008 05:51 PM

Microfacts Trac Timeline

Ticket #9 (enhancement closed): View a Thread (by date)

fixed:

See r103 and r102. A few todos leftover and could be extended/improved but basic functionality is there.

May 01, 2008 10:48 AM

April 30, 2008

okfn-discuss Mailing List

Re: [ok-london-announce] Open Knowledge LondonMeetup - Wednesday 30th April, London Knowledge Lab

Sorry, Jon and everyone else but Lessig's too good a draw :( On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Gray at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

by Michael Holloway at April 30, 2008 06:12 PM

Open Textbook Weblog

Vector Calculus

Michael Corral of Schoolcraft College has just let us know about his Vector Calculus which is available as a PDF under the GFDL. Its source will be available soon.

The book description says:

This is a text on elementary multivariable calculus, designed for students who have completed courses in single-variable calculus. The traditional topics are covered: basic vector algebra; lines, planes and surfaces; vector-valued functions; functions of 2 or 3 variables; partial derivatives; optimization; multiple integrals; line and surface integrals.

The book also includes discussion of numerical methods: Newton’s method for optimization, and the Monte Carlo method for evaluating multiple integrals. There is a section dealing with applications to probability. Appendices include a proof of the right-hand rule for the cross product, and a short tutorial on using Gnuplot for graphing functions of 2 variables.

There are 420 exercises in the book. Answers to selected exercises are included.

Update 2008-05-06: The LaTeX source is now available!

by Jonathan Gray at April 30, 2008 12:41 PM

okfn-discuss Mailing List

Re: Changing license

Fab! Ace! Back to the Lemsips for me. :) J.

by John Bywater at April 30, 2008 12:27 PM

Re: Changing license

Ah! Yes there is a button. I didn't see it as I was looking for a link! No it didn't... I tried again (going via the button) and now it seems to be working fine. Thanks! Also just spotted you can pick multiple licenses, which is very handy. Francis

by Francis Irving at April 30, 2008 12:18 PM

Re: Changing license

Note that generally OSI now believes that listing that many licenses was a mistake, and (at least in theory) requires demonstration of the need for a new license when approving the licenses. OKF may want to follow a similar route- only approve licenses which truly fill a new role within the ecosystem or otherwise have truly significant (multi-project) use. Luis

by Luis Villa at April 30, 2008 12:11 PM

Re: Changing license

Do you not see an 'Edit this project' button at the bottom of this page? http://www.knowledgeforge.net/project/ukparse/ You're an Administrator on that project, so there should be. KForge doesn't cache anything, at least. But nevertheless, it still looks like GPL from here. If you visit the project edit page again, does the new selection show in the form field? Thanks, I created a KForge ticket for this suggestion: http://project.knowledgeforge.net/kforge/trac/ticket/64 J.

by John Bywater at April 30, 2008 11:59 AM

KForge Trac Timeline

okfn-discuss Mailing List

Re: Changing license

That's the theory, but in practice I get taken here and given a 404: http://www.knowledgeforge.net/accessDenied//admin/model/License/ Which indicates both that I don't have the Administrator role on knowledgeforge.net (needed to access the admin/model pages, and also that the URL configuration isn't quite right for the 'access denied' page (there's a KForge page for that location). We've been here before, but I can't remember exactly why the knowledgeforge.net config is off (WSGI related?). J.

by John Bywater at April 30, 2008 10:41 AM

Re: Changing license

... Thank you! Two things.. 1. I couldn't find an actual link to this page, just John's link in his email. Should it be visible in the user interface to project admins? http://www.knowledgeforge.net/project/kforge/edit/ 2. Are pages like http://kforge.net/project/ukparse/ cached, as I can't see the change yet? I would keep it simple, just include the major licenses, but have a link saying "Want us to add a new license here?" I suspect the set of licenses used by open knowledge people will be quite different from the full list on opensource.org Francis

by Francis Irving at April 30, 2008 10:40 AM

Re: Changing license

Or anyone with system Administrator role (sysadmin) on knowledgeforge via: :) That said at the moment I think just John and myself are admins but I've now added you Francis so you can also use the web control panel to make these kind of changes too. Done. GNU Affero GPL (v3) added to the list (at the bottom of the list atm due to sorting by id rather than name). This request also leads me to a general question relevant for both KForge, CKAN (and elsewhere): *What licenses should be listed?* Currently opensource.org list must have over 50 licenses many of which are barely used. Similarly the list on the Open Definition [1] already has 10 or so and this number will surely grow. So there seem to be 3 options: 1. Only list 'major' licenses. 2. Relatedly: only list license types in the chooser and leave exact license to be specified in the project's license file (which should exist anyway). This will also reduce the risk that the kforge va

by Rufus Pollock at April 30, 2008 10:20 AM

April 29, 2008

okfn-discuss Mailing List

[OT] RecentChangesCamp 2008, May 9-11, Palo Alto, CA

_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list okfn-discuss-6A+mB+4cr9F9rwYpqGo9+w at >public.gmane.org http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss

by Evan Prodromou at April 29, 2008 08:23 PM

Re: Changing license

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:13 PM, John Bywater at >public.gmane.org> wrote: And of course change the license statement in the sources themselves, at least in the parts you have copyright in. Luis (trying to find a GPL->AGPL equivalent of this: http:/lwn.net/Articles/248223/ but so far failing)

by Luis Villa at April 29, 2008 07:09 PM