On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:48:44AM +0100, Roger Luethi wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:54:23 -0500, Timothy Miller wrote:
> > 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.
>
> In software, open and free essentially mean the same thing (despite their
> philosophical differences). In other areas, open has become virtually
> meaningless.
>
> "Open standard" is frequently used to refer to RAND licensing. According to
> some, it's open as long as the discrimination is only against those who
> can't afford the membership/license fees.
Possibly "Libre standard" or "Frei standard" would be worth defining
as a term, then. It would mean a standard which can be freely viewed and
implemented by anyone without paying a royalty, and whose creation and
maintenance is open to public participation without special privilege or
fee. The bazaar, instead of the cathedral.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
