5 ms·

>open standard >incompatible with open source Does this make sense to anyone? It seems to me the word open doesn't mean much now.

• pohl 16y ago
  The term "Open standard" predates the term "open source". The latter term was born as recently as January 1998 - around the same moment when Netscape Navigator was open sourced. The semantics that the latter term's use of "open" imply cannot be forced on the former.
  • Herring 16y ago
    I don't see that disagreeing with what I said. I can't tell if it was meant to, either.
    • pohl 16y ago
      Only inasmuch as the phrase "doesn't mean much now" suggests that it ever had a solid, singular, standardized meaning.
      • Herring 16y ago
        Fair enough.
  • sayrer 16y ago
    (disclosure: I work for Mozilla) I've never found the argument you're making very compelling. It's "open" in the same way that golf course with a $500 greens fee is open. What it really constitutes is a way for existing market players to collude, and thereby exclude future participants. Some of those future participants might be quite disruptive, and benefit consumers. It's really pretty funny that some terribly corrupt standards organizations arrived at a totally unsatisfactory definition of "open", and then tried to claim that better definitons of "open" somehow infringed(!) on their early, bad definition.
    • kenjackson 16y ago
      Most public golf courses I know of charge fees. Anyone can play as long as they pay. Some people actually do complain the fees are too expensive, but it's better than some country clubs where you need to be invited, approved, and then upfront dues atart at $100k. Now I know your point wasn't actually about golf, but a lot of "open" facilities do cost money to use. It's just that they're non-discrimanatory about their use and charge what they consider reasonable fees (enough to pay for staff, upkeep, improvements, etc...). This is actually very similar to MPEG-LA, the big difference being that MPEG-LA is not non-profit. But then again neither is Google. What would be a nice move by Google is to actually give all On2 property to Mozilla or Xiph. Or ever better yet, Outercurve (to show that they don't really want to indirectly exert disproportionate influence).
      • sayrer 16y ago
        > Most public golf courses I know of charge fees... enough to pay for staff, upkeep, improvements, etc... I don't think you read what I wrote, and I doubt you play golf. The fee at a decent public course where I grew up in Oregon is $37. > This is actually very similar to MPEG-LA, It's not at all similar. MPEG-LA collects rent on imaginary property.
      • danbmil99 16y ago
        As for non-discriminatory: I believe the MPEG-LA patent-holders are free to make side deals that bypass the supposedly non-discriminatory licensing fees. So if you are a major patent holder, you can in theory go to each of the other patent holders and negotiate 'cross-licensing' of your patents, agreeing to charge each other nothing for using each other's licenses. So MPEG in this light can be seen as a collusive monopolistic oligarchy, where if you're in the club you get something for free that everyone else has to pay for. Not very competitive. A bit of history: early on, On2 made a stink about the monopolistic nature of MPEG-LA: http://www.cedmagazine.com/Article.aspx?id=63386&LangType=1033 http://www.cedmagazine.com/Article.aspx?id=63386&LangTyp...
        • kenjackson 16y ago
  • yuhong 16y ago
    Yep, I think it even predates the invention of computers. For hardware, the H.264 level of "open" would have been enough.
    • wnoise 16y ago
      Because hardware has unit costs baked in. Software doesn't.
      • yuhong 16y ago
        Yep, that is one problem with the royalty model for software patents. It depends on artificial scarcity.