> > It's either open per the consensus of what the definition of open is or > it's not. > > You're certainly welcome to your /open enough/ opinion. Per Keith's scale > of > "openness", your definition is in the 3 -5 range. Where I think the general > consensus > of 'open" hw is in the 8 - 10 range else it's a > mis-understanding/perception of what "open" hw > is generally understood to be defined as... > > Depends on where you're getting this consensus from. If you're talking about people in general, I think running Linux is probably a very good gauge of 'open.' If you're talking about IT pros, possibly not quite so much. If you're talking about Linux enthusiasts to professionals then the bar is set much higher. Of course this list qualifies as that last part, so you're kind of preaching to the choir.
Good luck at ever getting a consensus from 100 random people on the street that would come even close to your 8-10 range that you talk about. (Note that even though this might sound like I'm not for open hardware based on your definition, that assumption would be wrong. I'm only questioning your definition and narrowness of 'consensus.') There's the meaning that some jargon has to the professional, and very frequently those things mean other things to the populace at large, if they mean anything at all. Of course this is true no matter what the profession. (Well, I guess there could be exceptions. I wonder how much jargon exists at your local fast food restaurant??) Erik _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
