public announcement - draft 1
Locked
12
12
Re: public announcement - draft 1
 
|
snip
>>change - freely accessible - to - accessible at no cost for non commercial purposes - >>reason - freely is the current modis operanti but at a cost! excluding freedom of >>information (FOI). non commercial is important as the assumption is that a business can >>afford to do this. > > > I respectfully disagree with this. I think that I should be able to > make a map of montreal that is advertiser supported and I should be > able to include potholes taken from a municipal or burrough database. I totally agree with Mike here. I think this makes the argument stronger actually, that a healthy public domain is good for everybody - business included - and in many cases of course business does a good job of giving citizens things they need. just make the data available, and not have any restrictions on how or why it can be used. snip >>>2) to support projects that use new online technologies to enable >>>citizens to easily find and share public information and data as well >>>as to re-contextualize that information in ways that make it >>>meaningful to them. >> >>hugh's changes here? >> > I'm still struggling with the wording of hugh's suggestion. I like > it, but I'm wondering if it's distracting - or I'm worrying if it > sounds too idealistic or smthng? recontextualize means. the question is: what do we want to do? give people access to civic data. let them do online (& other) projects with it. why? to make stronger/healthier communities? that would be my bet. it's very important that we get this right - and have a crystal clear objective, otherwise things will go pear-shaped quick with all sorts of input from competing directions. Can I suggest clarifying the prime objective (this will help all further decisions, not just about language, but where the project should go). Objective: to make all canadian civic data freely available to citizens in open formats on the internet. snip >>>As engaged citizens of our neighborhoods, cities, and provinces we are >>>working to develop a community of practice around open civic data in >>>Canada. >> >>change - of our - to - in our >> > > I was thinking of citizens not in terms of Canadian citizens but of > the greek city/state citizens of our neighborhood, cities, provinces > *and* then also canadian citizens. h. >>> >>>On 2/13/06, Stephane Guidoin <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>>>Basically, yup. Hopefully we can get some of the biggies to blog it, >>>>>too. If someone wants to send it as a press release that would >>>>>probably be okay as well - I'm not a PR guy so I don't know if there's >>>>>any reason to try that. >>>>> >>>>>Anyone else have ideas? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>To me there's a difference between invitation and press release. Actual >>>>participants could send invitations to people they know. But it could >>>>be interesting to make a press release which is more an announcement >>>>than an invitation. >>>> >>>>For example Online Rights Canada made a press release (I copied it there >>>>after as a reminder). But obviously, we don't have the same target as >>>>ORC : we want people to be participants and not spectators. >>>> >>>>The text Mike sent might not have the right tone to be added on a >>>>website. But it's good when you make a invitation to someone you know. >>>>To me, only the first sentence really needs to be changed to make >>>>something more public and opened. >>>> >>>>Stef >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>>[hidden email] >>><a >> >>href='http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca'>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca</a> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca >> > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca > |
Re: public announcement - draft 1
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Lenczner
On 2/21/06, Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> comments inline below > > > On 2/21/06, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote: > > change - freely accessible - to - accessible at no cost for non commercial purposes - > > reason - freely is the current modis operanti but at a cost! excluding freedom of > > information (FOI). non commercial is important as the assumption is that a business can > > afford to do this. > > I respectfully disagree with this. I think that I should be able to > make a map of montreal that is advertiser supported and I should be > able to include potholes taken from a municipal or burrough database. > I think that that database should be freely accessible to all - not > just to non-profit entities. Frankly, a lot of projects might not > happen if google adwords are not allowed. I have the same reaction that Michael has. Non-commercial is a very fuzy concept, see this list of use cases for example: http://oldwiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_use_cases Free software has thrived mostly because there are no commercial restrictions. Having a copyleft or sharealike clause, where you grant the use of the work or data only if the derivative work will also offer the same liberty, in essence works just as well as a non-commercial clause. My 0,02$ -- Robin 'oqp' Millette (aka Lord D. Nattor) http://rym.waglo.com/wordpress/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Lenczner
I know this is off topic (sorry mike!) but I'm so excited about this,
thought I would post here. It is tangentially related, as Canadian Unis are government funded. Berkely U in California are offering all sorts of podcasts of course lectures, see: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/courses/feeds.php Where are Canadian Universities on this? h. |
Re: public announcement - draft 1
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Lenczner
Now fellahs!
I agree! It was a little slip from my world, as in the lobby context it is a harsh and a hard sell to data producing and holding institusions operating in financially scarce environments! (i think i expressed the context i am coming from as a response to mike - take a peak!) change in the objective - freely availalble - to - available at no cost! Available freely is the current context, the hitch being there is a cost. You know what i would love to do! a brainstorm on the wiki or the list of all the reasons data and information and their related technologies shold be available at no cost to citizens! What do you think! There have been some nice ones articulated so far and it would be good to expand on those. It could also become a really nice resource for those trying to convince institutions why they should have the data and even be fine fodder for those embroiled over legal debates with their municipal govs! ciao! tracey Tracey P. Lauriault Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre (GCRC) Dept. of Geography, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa (ON) K1S 5B6 (Off) +1 613 520 2600 ext 2252 (Home) +1 613 234 2805 [hidden email] or [hidden email] On Feb 22, "Robin Millette" <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 2/21/06, Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]> wrote: > > comments inline below > > > > > > On 2/21/06, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > change - freely accessible - to - accessible at no cost for non commercial purposes - > > > reason - freely is the current modis operanti but at a cost! excluding freedom of > > > information (FOI). non commercial is important as the assumption is that a business can > > > afford to do this. > > > > I respectfully disagree with this. I think that I should be able to > > make a map of montreal that is advertiser supported and I should be > > able to include potholes taken from a municipal or burrough database. > > I think that that database should be freely accessible to all - not > > just to non-profit entities. Frankly, a lot of projects might not > > happen if google adwords are not allowed. > > I have the same reaction that Michael has. Non-commercial is a very > fuzy concept, see this list of use cases for example: > <a ativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_use_cases</a> > > Free software has thrived mostly because there are no commercial > restrictions. Having a copyleft or sharealike clause, where you grant > the use of the work or data only if the derivative work will also > offer the same liberty, in essence works just as well as a > non-commercial clause. > > My 0,02$ > > -- > Robin 'oqp' Millette (aka Lord D. Nattor) > <a href='http://rym.waglo.com/wordpress/'>http://rym.waglo.com/wordpress/</a> > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > <a href='http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess- discuss_civicaccess.ca</a> > |
Re: public announcement - draft 1
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault-2
Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
> Ok! Just hard to get buy in! Abolishing cost recovery all together > is a hard sell. Do we have economists among us? I'd love to find out if the "cost recovery" concept has even recovered the costs of administering "cost recovery", leave alone anything else. I also think we need to go beyond thinking of the public sector as if it were part of the private sector. Money is not the only (or even most relevant) measure of exchange, and in many cases the government has programs to accomplish things which could be done more collaboratively with other sectors if we abolished "cost recovery". Can anyone think of a "cost recovery" justification for charging for access to the postal code --> EDID lookup table? It would be easy to find an NGO that would be willing to receive this data and publicly distribute it if there was a (IMHO unjustifiable) claim that it would be costly to make this information public (full public license or public domain which allows for the royalty-free creation and distribution of derivatives). >> But this a valid point that we can debate/discuss. Anyone else >> have some opinions on this? > > any others! Russel what are your thoughts on this? I'm a FLOSS guy, and believe that only through full multi-sector collaboration (including commercial for-profits, NGOs and governments, all the way to volunteering teenagers in their basements) can the full potential of any public information be realized (whether that information be software or civic data). In my mind what government agencies get in terms of resource amplification from this multi-sector process outweighs any theoretical "cost recovery" via royalties/etc that they can get now. This makes me a little biased in all of this. Recognizing that there will be barriers to our goals, and that we will need to settle for baby steps, is different than knowing what we want for a final goal. > it is pretty good! Less idealistic than free data for industry in > this current fiscally conservative environment ;) We shouldn't assume interpretations of ideaology on the part of any party, even if we are part of that part. The "Corporate welfare bum" concept is largely from "the left". Conservatives are all for providing tax and other incentives to promote innovation. Industry Canada has a number of granting programs for private industry, many of which were either put in by conservative governments or expanded by conservative governments. Why should governments have programs where they offer grants to companies, but not be willing to share something of greater value: knowledge that can then be leveraged in value-add services. All the reasons why tax cuts are good for the private sector equally apply to eradicating "cost recovery" from government generated knowledge. It is always a matter of wording things to fit what people want to do anyway. All IMHO of course ;-) -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 2415+ Canadians oppose Bill C-60 which protects antiquated Recording, Movie and "software manufacturing" industries from modernization. http://KillBillC60.ca Sign--> http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/ |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |