On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 05:01:42PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: > On 10/07/13 16:33, heath rezabek wrote: > >Actually, given the Open Definition, I'd disagree. Open is a term that > >really can be defined, and as such I also think it's a strong candidate > >for universal usage. > > > >http://opendefinition.org/ > > The OKD is a (superior) adaptation of the OSD which is an adaptation > of the DFSG which is a Free Software definition... > > "Open" was historically chosen as a nice, fuzzy, politically > uncommitted buzzword. I respect the OSI and OKF's choice of it, and > there certainly are contexts where "openness" is a meaningful > virtue, but there are also contexts where it's a way of avoiding > saying "freedom". This is one of them. > i think this is a very relevent (proportionally to it's humongous size) article: http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustler whether you ignore the ad hominems is up to you, they might distract from the core message....
-- pgp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/stef.gpg pgp fp: FD52 DABD 5224 7F9C 63C6 3C12 FC97 D29F CA05 57EF otr fp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/otr.txt _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
