On 10/03/2013 02:05 PM, glen wrote:
Re: using openness as a tool for opacity
As far as a I can tell, you are just using the word opacity to mean
anything that isn't clear enough to be wrong, or not apparently valuable
enough to get scrutiny. That's distinct from purposely holding back
information, and even traditional scientific journals don't aim for
that, at least to their customers. Using the FSF lingo, traditional
scientific journals are neither libre or gratis, but aim to be
sourceware. Sourceware can be restricted to customers or some defined
audience. The meaning I use in this context for opacity is the opposite
of sourceware. Half the story, not the whole story.
I can see there is a potential tension between anticipated value and the
energy available for scrutiny, though.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
