On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 07:54:23PM -0500, Timothy Miller wrote:
> On 1/7/07, Jack Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm still bothered by the ambiguity in the definition of "free" in
> >English. As I once mentioned, we might be better off with a word from
> >another language, that refers only to freedom.
>
> You mean like "Libre"?
Yeah. Maybe some of our European members, who know more languages
than we do, might have other suggestions. But that's the one I thought of.
Hmm... Maybe "Frei"?
>
> > Regarding our project's name, I don't think we can change it, for
> >two reasons. One is the widespread recognition. The other is that we are
> >only able to develop open specification designs with open documentation at
> >present. Economics prevent us from publishing the full internals and
> >granting unrestricted modification rights, until up-front costs are
> >recouped. So I think it would be deceptive to bill ourselves as a free
> >hardware engineering project, until we're able to deliver on that claim.
>
> I wonder if RMS has any objection to the term "Open Standard".
> Perhaps, in a bit if a retcon, we could say that in "Open Graphics
> Project," we are referring to the fact that we are creating an open
> standard.
"Open standard" has a fairly well-established meaning. According to
Andy Updegrove's blog on standards that sometimes pops up on linuxtoday.com,
an open standard is published, can be implemented by anybody, and
participation in the standards making process is open. I think we meet
those criteria.
So we're going to write and publish a set of standards, and then
implement them in hardware.
What the heck is a retcon?
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
