I’ve been working on one of RedMonk’s rare paper writing projects and I find myself wanting to use the phrase “open platform” when describing a system. I’ve written about the concept before, but it was in the context of systems that were or had open source components.
The question is then, can the adjective “open” be used by a closed source vendor without getting eye-rolls from open source and other people? Long ago, open was used to describe “open systems”. But, my fear is that now a vendor will get no end of crap hurled at them if they dare use the word “open” when they’re not open source.
What do you think? (Vote below if you want.)
Technorati Tags: brand, marketing, open, platforms, openplatforms, polls
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.
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
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.
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…
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".