<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Open Services Definition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://changingway.org/2007/07/23/open-services-definition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://changingway.org/2007/07/23/open-services-definition/</link>
	<description>Andrew weighs in on the ways in which the web and the world are changing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 15:11:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis</title>
		<link>http://changingway.org/2007/07/23/open-services-definition/#comment-983</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Luis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://changingway.org/2007/07/23/open-services-definition/#comment-983</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Q: Would an open services definition differ from a free services definition?
A: Almost certainly; an open definition might (for example) not require source access, as long as data access was available. The FSF would never settle for that.
Q: Is it best to start with a definition? Or is it better to start thinking about what licenses or other agreements might be useful?
A: I expect it&#039;ll be iterative, but starting with implementations is never the right solution. Understand the problem, then implement, then iterate. &#039;Plan to throw one away&#039; doesn&#039;t mean &#039;make the first one up as you go along.&#039;
Q: Might there end up being a family of licenses (cf Creative Commons)?
A: Maybe. There will certainly be a variety of licenses; the question is to what extent they are related to each other- tightly, like CC, or loosely, like the various OSI-approved licenses? I&#039;d love to see CC-style, but OSI-style seems much more likely.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Q: Would an open services definition differ from a free services definition?<br />
A: Almost certainly; an open definition might (for example) not require source access, as long as data access was available. The FSF would never settle for that.<br />
Q: Is it best to start with a definition? Or is it better to start thinking about what licenses or other agreements might be useful?<br />
A: I expect it&#8217;ll be iterative, but starting with implementations is never the right solution. Understand the problem, then implement, then iterate. &#8216;Plan to throw one away&#8217; doesn&#8217;t mean &#8216;make the first one up as you go along.&#8217;<br />
Q: Might there end up being a family of licenses (cf Creative Commons)?<br />
A: Maybe. There will certainly be a variety of licenses; the question is to what extent they are related to each other- tightly, like CC, or loosely, like the various OSI-approved licenses? I&#8217;d love to see CC-style, but OSI-style seems much more likely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

