Network services/Definitions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:13, 13 March 2008

Definitions can be used, as in the Free Software and Free Culture definitions, to highlight network services that meet a standard of freedom.

Summary of current practices

OSD: Open data (private data only open to the user it's about) and public free software.

FOSD: this is more of a brainstorming/reference page than a definition; the draft definition produced from that process has been mailed to the mailing list and if someone nags me I'll put it on the web somewhere :)

Open issues

What do you do about Googlejuice?
What do you do about identity?
Are external dependencies permitted?
Ease-of-install requirements?
Interoperability requirements?
Requirement to share aggregate/anonymized user data?

Definition requirements

Some brainstorming requirements for what a free network services definition should be.

feasible: it should be technically and legally feasible to create a network service that meets the definition. It would be very nice if it were feasible to create useful, beneficial services that meet the definition. It would be a bonus to have a definition that could be met by services implemented by all kinds of entities, including commercial ones.
comprehensible: the language should be in the vernacular, roughly understandable by most people interested in the topic. OSD, FSD, DFSG, etc. are good guidelines for language level. Commonly-understood terms like "software" or "data" don't need to be defined.
parallel: the definition should be similar in spirit, level of detail, and comprehension to Free Software and Free Content definitions.
defensible: there should be a good rationale for each point.
general: it should cover all kinds of network services. In particular, it should not be limited to the Web; to RPC-style services or services with a UI; it should probably not make assumptions about the Internet (versus another network) or particular architectures like client-server or peer-to-peer.
timeless: it would be nice if the definition would be useful for people in 10-20 years.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 * Interoperability requirements?
 * Requirement to share aggregate/anonymized user data?
+== Definition requirements ==
+Some brainstorming requirements for what a free network services definition ''should'' be.
+; feasible : it should be technically and legally feasible to create a network service that meets the definition. It would be very nice if it were feasible to create useful, beneficial services that meet the definition. It would be a bonus to have a definition that could be met by services implemented by all kinds of entities, including commercial ones.
+; comprehensible : the language should be in the vernacular, roughly understandable by most people interested in the topic. OSD, FSD, DFSG, etc. are good guidelines for language level. Commonly-understood terms like "software" or "data" don't need to be defined.
+; parallel : the definition should be similar in spirit, level of detail, and comprehension to Free Software and Free Content definitions.
+; defensible : there should be a good rationale for each point.
+; general : it should cover all kinds of network services. In particular, it should not be limited to the Web; to RPC-style services or services with a UI; it should probably not make assumptions about the Internet (versus another network) or particular architectures like client-server or peer-to-peer.
+; timeless : it would be nice if the definition would be useful for people in 10-20 years.