[pp.int.general] [Slashdot] EU Wants To Redefine "Closed" As "Nearly Open"

[Ed Galligan]

<edulix at gmail.com> wrote:
> Uhm it seems that it's not as bad as they make look like it in
> slashdot, see comment
> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1428432&cid=29959614

Not really. That comment states: *"you have distorted and misrepresented
what they have actually said. They never defined, nor attempted to redefine
closed as open"* - which is incorrect, as the Slashdot entitles this story *"EU
Wants To Redefine "Closed" As "Nearly Open"*" - which is about right, the
"nearly" being the moderation in the title.

That comment merely outlines references to nearly-openness in the framework
report, and attempts to fob them off as actual openness, which is precisely
what the report is also trying to do.

It places the absolute most extreme case of "closedness" at one end of a
spectrum, at which open source is at the other end - leaving plenty of scope
for "reasonably but not extremely" closed source proprietary technologies to
be defined as "kind of close to" open as they are further up this imaginary
"spectrum" they've defined.

They've also removed any specific concrete references to preferring open
source, referred to as *"Open Source Software (OSS)"* in the previous
framework document, replacing them with vague generalities like the
open-to-interpretation adjective: *"openness".*


On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Patrick Mächler <
patrick.maechler at pp-international.net> wrote:

> They are trying to change the discourse.
> They euphemize the terms "closed software"/"proprietary software" by
> dropping them (as they become pejorative) and putting software itself
> into an "openness continuum".
>
> Software vendors that have relied onto proprietary software business
> models are now trying to rescue their position by agreeing on slight
> changes, because their arguments in favour of their model have become
> extremely weak due to the rising popularization of FOSS. Simply spoken
> they try to subvert the term "open" step-by-step, so that they can
> retain in a certain position. Nobody would be that stupid to start by
> defining "proprietary software" as "partly open".
> We have already seen an approach into that direction with OOXML.
>
> Just do not underestimate the power of subversion.
>
> -pat
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Nicolas Sahlqvist <nicco77 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Well, good I was not able to post it to tratten then.. Now I should be
> able
> > to.
> >
> > - Nicolas
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Eduardo Robles Elvira <edulix at gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Nicolas Sahlqvist <nicco77 at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > And it's not the 1st of April today so we can not just laugh at it why
> I
> >> > CC
> >> > it to tratten for feedback and action.
> >> > The leaked version 2 can be found here:
> >> >
> >> >
> http://www.bigwobber.nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/European-Interoperability-Framework-for-European-Public-Services-draft.pdf
> >> > However, except the few EU MEP on our side what can PP's do, some
> press
> >> > releases may help.
> >> >
> >> > - Nicolas
> >> >   PPI / PPSE member
> >>
> >> Uhm it seems that it's not as bad as they make look like it in
> >> slashdot, see comment
> >> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1428432&cid=29959614
> >>
> >> False alarm?
> >> ____________________________________________________
> >> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> >> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> >> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091105/41018023/attachment-0001.htm>