Hi, Stefano Maffulli ha scritto: > Now, since I am summarizing in this paper what defines a standard that > is implementable in Free Software, it would be nice to propose also a > term that is non controversial like 'open standard'. [...] > 1) does it make sense to introduce in the Free Software community a new > term that is non-controversial and more precise than the generic 'open > standard'?
Since the paper will try to define another idea of 'standard', that is: that standard which can be implemented within the Free Software and therefore compatible with certain kind of licences (such as GPL), yes i believe that not only it makes sense to introduce another term, but it is *necessary*. 'Open standard' *already* refers to a set of standards that, in some cases, would not be compatible with FS. Using that same name to point to another concept (i.e: only those standard which have full compatibility with FS), will necessarily lead to confusion and misunderstanding. > 2) if yes, what would that term be? Considering that the adjective 'open' is already used in 'open standard', i would avoid to restrict that adjective adding more ones to it: we would end up having not an *appropriate name* but a *descriptive* term, and since descriptive names are not real names they are very prone to be shortened by common and daily usage. To conclude, i would suggest to take some distances from the 'open'/'free' terminology and use a new term, something like: fair standard community standard transparent standard bright standard or something like that, i don't have lot of imagination, but i hope i explained what i meant :P Greetings, Giacomo -- [] Giacomo Poderi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [][][] || Fellow n.593, http://www.fsfe.org Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
