On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:19 PM, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> I think I incorrectly phrased my point... I meant: it is irrelevant if
> a something is Open or not, with respect to becoming a standard.
> (stupid double negations, and lack of bracket in English :)
Or I was being overly flippant. My real pur
There is clearly a spectrum of uses of the word Open, some of which we would
all agree with and some of which we would disagree. There are intermediates
where we will draw different lines.
As an example I recently heard a presentation (not chemistry) where the
presenter (primarily a salesperson) a
Egon Willighagen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Craig James
> wrote:
>> If there are specific concerns about specific projects, then
>> I'm all for a hearty discussion. If we want to recommend
>> specific licenses as "preferred" for all OB projects, then
>> that's a good discussion to
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Dalke wrote:
> Open Source CANNOT exist if its participants and especially its advocates -
> of which BlueObelisk is one - do not respect and follow copyright and
> licenses.
Agreed, as indicated elsewhere in this thread. Doing
licensing/copyright properl
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Andrew Dalke wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Egon Willighagen
>> wrote:
>> in reply to the other thread... one thing we seem to agree on, is that
>> standards cannot be Open or not... something is a standard or not, and
>> this is decided by the uptak
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Egon Willighagen
> wrote:
> in reply to the other thread... one thing we seem to agree on, is that
> standards cannot be Open or not... something is a standard or not, and
> this is decided by the uptake really...
I disagree!
There is a very interesting and r
On Dec 11, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> Thank you Andrew for this very detailed account. It's clear that the details
> are complicated so let me take a higher level view.
I fail though to see how taking "a higher level view" resolves the license
conflict which appears to exist b
2009/12/10 Peter Murray-Rust :
[...]
> The BO list has started a discussion on what is meant by "Open Standards"
> which is part of the BO mantra ("Open data", Open Source, Open Data"). There
> is also a concern about what is meant by "Community" as in Community Norms.
Both good questions and the
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Egon Willighagen <
egon.willigha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> in reply to the other thread... one thing we seem to agree on, is that
> standards cannot be Open or not... something is a standard or not, and
> this is decided by the uptake really...
>
> Instea
Hi all,
in reply to the other thread... one thing we seem to agree on, is that
standards cannot be Open or not... something is a standard or not, and
this is decided by the uptake really...
Instead, what the discussion was really about is: Open Specifications.
Shall we rename ODOSOS to: Open Dat
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> The intention of all the BO contributors of code and specs is to make them
> available, and re-usable without inappropriate restrictions. There is no
> intention to restrict fields of endeavour or people or organizations.
>
> Many of the
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Craig James wrote:
> BO itself, in spite of being dedicated to "the concepts of Open Data, Open
> Standards and Open Source," doesn't actually state in a meaningful way what
> those terms mean. English-language prose are nice, but legal documents have
> meaning
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Craig James wrote:
> Let's back up a couple step. I can't even figure out what we're discussing.
>
> Do you want a *policy* for OB that all projects have to adhere to?
(I assume you mean BO for Blue Obelisk, not OB for OpenBabel)
We are typically promoting s
Thank you Andrew for this very detailed account. It's clear that the details
are complicated so let me take a higher level view.
The intention of all the BO contributors of code and specs is to make them
available, and re-usable without inappropriate restrictions. There is no
intention to restrict
14 matches
Mail list logo
