I think there's a huge difference between "take an existing system design, and declare it open" and "design a system in the open". This article isn't suggestin

I think there's a huge difference between "take an existing system design, and declare it open" and "design a system in the open". This article isn't suggesting Intel make x86 open to all, for example. You get a completely different design when something is designed behind closed doors as a black-box product, versus designed in the open. Linux and Windows have drastically different designs, based on how they grew up. Early Mozilla releases were open-source, but still "bore the scars of many rapid cycles of closed-source development" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Application_Suite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Application...]. From the recent news, it seems that StarOffice is finally becoming somewhat hackable for us mere mortals (who don't speak German). It's the process, more than the license. An open license enables an open process. "Magic bullet" implies you've got something evil (x86, with bugs!) and want to magically transform it (x86, with no bugs?), but nobody is proposing that. It sounds more like they want to put Conway's Law to work for us (e.g., RISC-V).