Comments on: Who owns "open"? http://redmonk.com/cote/2007/03/08/who-owns-open/ One foot in the muck, the other in utopia Tue, 29 May 2012 14:02:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1 By: Scott Mark http://redmonk.com/cote/2007/03/08/who-owns-open/#comment-1155 Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:30:52 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2007/03/08/who-owns-open/#comment-1155 I think vendors need to be cautious about using "open", exactly because there is not a common understanding of the term. If they use it, they should be prepared to go the distance.

Vendors have been providing SPIs and pluggable architectures for a long time and that was always called "published" not "open".

]]> By: James http://redmonk.com/cote/2007/03/08/who-owns-open/#comment-1154 Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:37:30 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2007/03/08/who-owns-open/#comment-1154 I am fine with vendors using the word open if it refers to the savage creation of industry standards or community participation by also providing source code with zero restrictions. Other than that, I think my expectations are that analysts will call vendors out so that customers don't get it twisted…

]]> By: James Governor http://redmonk.com/cote/2007/03/08/who-owns-open/#comment-1153 Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:04:08 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2007/03/08/who-owns-open/#comment-1153 I am with Mark and Ed on this one. Conflating open and open source isn't entirely helpful. Stephen has done enough great definitional work around "open standard" and "open format" for us to be happy to use that term in the right context. As long as their is an open specification being met, ideally stewarded by a third party- a vendor can use the term open.

]]> By: ewH http://redmonk.com/cote/2007/03/08/who-owns-open/#comment-1152 Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:50:44 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2007/03/08/who-owns-open/#comment-1152 I agree with Mark on this one; it depends on what context the term is being applied. As long as they don't claim open SOURCE, then they should be able to use the word to explain the areas which they are indeed open.
Cheers,
-ewH

]]> By: Mark Wahl http://redmonk.com/cote/2007/03/08/who-owns-open/#comment-1151 Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:46:00 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2007/03/08/who-owns-open/#comment-1151 Vendors should be "free" to use the word "open" to describe aspects of their product besides the source code, so long as they define their terms and the implications are clear. I see nothing wrong with an open platform, open APIs, open systems, open standards, open change control processes, for closed-source, restricted-source or both-closed-and-open-source products: these terms are valuable and AFAIK there is no good alternative term.

]]>