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

[Félix Robles]

It's free software and not open software what's on one end of that spectrum.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Ed Galligan <ed.galligan at gmail.com> wrote:

> <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
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> 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/20091105/09fa0ca3/attachment.htm>