我覺得臺灣當然不管是在物種上的diversity，好比像臺灣有全世界有10％的海洋物種或者氣候的diversity，又或者是各種各樣生態系上，我覺得都是提供一個很好的reminder，也就是說不是只為人類，因為它並不是那麼artificial，也就是不會讓人類覺得這一個環境完全都是人可以建造的，我覺得這一個位置就是在提醒人類說人類不是自己的，我們是這一個島的，一時之間可以說是steward，但最後還是要讓路給新的智慧物種等等，所以再這樣講下去，就不用講別的（笑）。
臺灣是四百萬年以前就有了，所以其實是很古老的位置，有人類之前就是在兩個板塊中間，每一年上升五公分的舞臺，當然後來有了人類，但我們可以想像說四百萬年以前沒有人類，而四百萬年以後可能人類也不一定在這邊了，我覺得人類是一個過客，現在是一個人類史，就是我們會把其他物種或者是其他環境，很大程度上當作人類發展自己的目標工具來思考。
所以其實社會連結企業的方式有非常非常多，並不限定一種方式，可能每一種都是不同的方式，所以我會覺得只要一個企業或者是一個NPO、合作社回答得出來social mission是什麼，然後這個mission是鎖定的，並不是因為賺錢的時候捐一點錢，而是即使不賺錢，也是要做這一件事，我可以說是社會創新的社會企業。
但是因為他們有這一種crowd sources task force，其實以後也可以diversify好比像也可以像剛剛所說的mapping，或者是幫機器學習去做一些tagging或者做一些這樣的工作，這就是在他的商業模式裡面就包含比較難以就業的朋友就業部分。
在臺灣當然有很多不同的，有一家BIM公司，它做的就是若水國際股份有限公司，是讓比較沒有辦法用傳統方式就業的朋友，但是讓他們學習建築的建模，其實大部分的工作是可以把它切成小塊塊，讓他們可以在家裡工作，也可以在一定的訓練之後，其實他們在外面說我們是一家BIM公司的時候，不會特別去強調我們的員工是某些特定的弱勢團體，他們就是跟任何其他的公司有很好的服務。
它當然是一家社會企業，並不只是有社會性，而是它存在的目的就是要解決資訊難以傳遞的這一種社會問題。
其實這一些東西在我們有網路、雲端技術之前，其實很難想像大家可以在幾百公里之外，還是可以幫助地震的朋友。同樣的，GeoThings是想要把這樣的技術帶到當地的policy maker那邊，也就是在那之前可以先run一些drill，實際災難發生的時候，就不會慌，也可以用手機App-based, location-based去做。
其實國際的社群，好比像「Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team」在尼泊爾地震的時候，就是用了這一種群眾外包的方式，幫尼泊爾那邊衛星空照圖，也就是地震以前跟地震以後切成小塊，看哪一些路斷掉等等。
舉例來說：像臺灣有一個專門做救災的，叫做「究心公益科技」（GeoThings），它在聯合國體系相當有名，反而比在臺灣內部有名，它做的事情有點類似透過開放街圖等mapping的技術，在災難發生的時候，就可以contribute當地的資訊到來救災的人身上。
「社會企業」從我的角度來看，我會把它唸成「社會連結企業」，就像「亞洲‧矽谷」我會唸成「亞洲連結矽谷」。它並不是把企業盡一些社會責任，也不是讓社會福利或者是這一些社會援助的工作企業化；相反的，它是在社會跟企業中間，除了捐錢及買東西之外，還有一種新的結合方式，每一家社會企業會有完全不同的方式。
所以「延展式傾聽」的想法是，現在好比有兩萬人，我們要怎麼樣確保每一個人都可以聽得到他覺得能夠理解的那個狀態，並且他講出來的話是一個建議，對別人來講不是noise，而是signal，這中間就有非常多的技術可以運用。
像我現在聽你說話、你聽我說話，我們確定彼此的注意力彼此身上，這個狀況是不scale的，就是說一個房間裡面如果有二十個人，大家還可以大致知道彼此的狀態，但當發現有兩百人的時候，再好的主持人也不可能很確切知道每個人的注意力及確保每個人有在聽彼此說話等等，不但受到物理限制、也受到人腦的限制。
所以這次很高興看到很多startup的朋友們，正在做的題目是我們可以integrate到我們的policy making process裡面，所以我覺得這個是不用特別為我們做什麼，只要確保在做的事情讓人跟人之間的溝通更容易，因為我們做的題目——延展式傾聽——這個是做不完的，這個是非常大的題目，所以其實任何跟這個有一點相關的，我們都會用得到。
所以其實我們用得上所有的技術，任何大家正在做的工具，只要是有助於意見凝聚、有助於解決一個大聲公的問題，也就是如何一次聽許多人說話，讓許多人彼此聽彼此說話，中間的任何技術我們都用得上。
我們PDIS（Public Digital Innovation Space）在臺灣政府裡面value proposition就是讓專業事務官的公務員在面對網路、年輕世代公民意見的時候，我們能夠用一些技術上的方式去降低他們的風險，去減少他們的成本，而這個成本包含重複索取資料的成本、整理noise to signal等等，所以也可以說是一個介面吧！
像我自己work with Apple大概六年，最有印象的是在別的地方可能PM說了算，我在某些大公司像Google，是軟體工程師說了算，但在Apple永遠是設計師說了算，我覺得這樣一種新的狀況，在很多新的題目都看到，這個是我覺得intergeneration最容易合作的地方，因為雙方都得reset雙方expectation。
我覺得隨著技術越來越離開機器，也越來越走進人類，大部分的題目都長成這樣子，所以臺灣有一種說法是以軟體帶動硬體，但是事實上軟體本身也是以人的需求來帶動。
但是我覺得現在的狀況比較不是這樣子，最近一些新的題目，像我自己很關心的AR、VR，其實已經沒有很明確地去區分哪一個discipline，我們看到任何一個AR、VR的公司，其實都是結合了硬體、設計、心理學、劇場、人類學，其實需要非常多不同discipline的朋友，我覺得這個很有助於reset大家vocabulary，不再是哪一方面有二十年經驗或者是有三十年經驗可以貢獻什麼，當然可以貢獻他的wisdom，但絕大部分想出一個新的innovation的時候，更需要的不是哪一個vertical很深的經驗，能夠跨領域的轉譯、思考的能力。
從軟體的角度來看，其實當時已經很清楚說SaaS（Software as a Service）是每天都可以iterator，所以才會造成兩個community中間很少有共同的語言，而且discipline也非常不一樣。
其實最近很多題目我覺得跟我之前最早來矽谷、自己創業的時候，那是在1999年、2000年左右很不一樣，當時硬體跟軟體確實分得很開，大部分如果軟體的人要跟著硬體，也就是這一些firmware、driver等東西，它的iteration cycle就會跟著硬體走，等於是很長的。
Yeah, you too. Thank you for the interview. Bye.
Sure. It’s just fine. All right.
Again, for all the newly-constructed systems, the agency can, as part of IFP, to require at zero or very little cost, a production of the OAS schema, in addition of the open data set -- not open, or any structured data set.
Yeah. That’s documented in the OAS standard. It’s a updated version of Swagger. We actually also adopted that as a national standard. We’re the first, at the moment, the only one to do so.
It’s important because we are moving toward defining open data as fitting the open definition, and perhaps -- I’m guessing, here -- that he wants not just the one-way transition clause part, which automatically fits the open definition, but the design itself to be verified by the open knowledge community.
Again, because the community wants it. I’m just the sounding board for the community. In this case, it was proposed by Lucien, the same person who originally drafted this license.
In our case, it’s actually, we don’t provide a way for agencies or city governments to upload their data, per se. The national Open Data Platform only uploads the metadata. The actual download still goes to the respective agencies.
We’ve updated the template. We are at the moment not strictly speaking saying that all the agencies must switch over to the new license. Sometimes, an external user or experts would make the suggestion. So far, all the ministry that received the suggestion, that I’m aware of, made the change.
On the other hand, it may be also offered as a download link, for example, to a ZIP file or to a CSV file, from its normal website. I’m referring more to the latter, where the term of use of one specific website also overlappingly refers to the data that ...
The same data is provided often in two forms. It’s provided as data set over at data.gov.tw, which we handle through M2M, machine-to-machine APIs.
As of whether the agencies themselves still publish the URL to this page that clearly says the license applies to all the data provided online. They are more and more doing so. We are not 100 percent yet, but whenever someone sees something, then we send a letter for them ...
We do have an automated machine-to-machine protocol to syndicate between data portals. That is to say both the regional city portals and national city portals exchange through this machine-to-machine interface. That answers the technical part of the question.
I’m back. Batteries are the only technology that doesn’t improve exponentially.
We actually do. Let me find a power adapter. I’ll be back in a minute.
It also talks very clearly about how all the new ICT systems must produce open data by default, unless its maintenance cost over the past three years is one million euros or more, or things like that. You can see the open definition is our definition of open at the ...
Sure. I’m pasting you that. Actually, all the relevant documents is listed in one single page in the open data platform. I’ll paste you that. You can follow all the links. Here we go.
As long as it’s fitting the open definition. For example, they can also choose the CC Share-Alike license.
That’s exactly right. We take, for example, the data has its origin URL. You use that as the attribution, and that will completely state the license quite well.
Until we have a truly international Creative Commons license, I don’t think it’s easier or any more comfortable than a local license with a transition clause. That was back then. I’m not sure if we do the whole exercise now, wouldn’t we just choose CC 4. Maybe we would, but ...
At that time, there is no Chinese version of Creative Commons 4.0. It was not translated until 2016, if I am not mistaken. It wasn’t an option. While we could of course use CC BY 3.0 Taiwan, but that doesn’t really work.
As why do we not just choose CC 4.0? Was that the question?
At the time, GPL has a very large number of users, and Artistic License is only used by Perl or a few other software packages. He wanted to make sure that it’s considered part of the larger free software movement, so this device is promoted to us.
Larry Wall designed it, Artistic License specifically, to make people using the GNU Public License happy, because they can, if they want, transition from Artistic License to the GPL.
There are a few things. The first is that this one-way transition clause is actually very familiar to us, especially to me, because the first open-source license that I encounter was the Artistic License as used in the Perl community.
It was then discussed after quite a few discussion that existing civil code actually covers this already. It really doesn’t matter whether it’s part of the license or not, so that was taken out. I think that’s the two substantial debates that we have.
There were some other issues as well. There was about whether usage of this data or misuse can cause the damage in reputation for the providing agency, and whether the user of this data should provide the warranty or compensate for any damages.
After some debate, it was deleted from the community version, because it’s not part of any of the three initial design goals. It’s more of a request, because it wouldn’t then fit the open definition definitions, so they took it out.
There was quite a few discussions around this clause, because there’s clearly a need by the providing agency, but it’s actually not so clear that it actually fits open definition. I may want to make something that really requires a very high barrier of entry, and I don’t want to ...
That’s actually one of the very common clauses before open data, when we only had the freedom of information, Public Information Publishing Act, is that if you make derived works, let us know somehow, as part of the terms of use.
For example, there was a use case where the providing agency, as they often did, requested a copy of any derived work from the data - be it an application or whatever, as a tracking mechanism, if you will.
