- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:03:38 -0400
- To: Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
- CC: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On 6/28/2013 4:46 AM, Olivier Thereaux wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > On 28 Jun 2013, at 06:38, "Andreas Kuckartz" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote: >> We are talking about the "Open Web Platform" aren't we? "Standards" >> which can not be implemented using an Open Source license chosen by the >> implementer are not part of that. >> To some extend it is funny to watch closed source proponents attempting >> to (re-)define "Open" in a way which is incompatible with Open Source. > This is a very interesting statement. Even having worked in the field of open standards for a very long time, I don't think I could be so confident. And I might even suggest there might be a bit of a kettle/pot situation here. > > Our problem is *precisely* that there has been a lot of ambiguity about what the "open web platform" is (other than a good - and recent - brand for the W3C to talk about most of its specs). Is it a platform built with open standards (open as in "developed in the open") or is it a standard platform compatible with the FLOSS ethos (open as in "open source") fwiw, Wikipedia [1] provides 18 contradictory definitions of what it is to be an open standard. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard > > The answer is... Yes, it's one or the other. Or maybe something in between. As the discussion so far shows, there is not a single authoritative nor universally agreed upon definition - only the course of history may decide… > > Meanwhile, some people on both sides are claiming that "obviously it is [your preference here]" and accusing the other side of being disingenuous. Not sure that's really helping. > > Best, > -- > Olivier > > > ----------------------------- > http://www.bbc.co.uk > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and > may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. > If you have received it in > error, please delete it from your system. > Do not use, copy or disclose the > information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender > immediately. > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails > sent or received. > Further communication will signify your consent to > this. > ----------------------------- >
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 09:03:35 UTC