Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing
Reply #35 –
Of course we do. We've always known. I would have long been satisfied if they'd just admit it rather than hide it behind some 'it's not open therefore you can't play in our sandbox' malarky.
Ah, you misread me. I never said they pursued openness. I said they pursued the title of openness. Something far less noble. They don't know how, they don't know what openness is. Their actions have shown this, time and again, that they don't understand what openness means. They just act in a way that seems to work towards having the title.
Much like one can have a certification in something and have no idea on its practical applications (like a number of my fellow Zend Certified Engineers would seem to be)
You and I disagree on this. There is a 'they'. They can claim the title of openness and by the letter of the lay of things, there is an argument they might even be right. But to call something open and for it to be open are two distinctly different things.
I have been part of events for some time now. The moments I have re-entered their stream of things I became part of the fabric of those events. I am only too aware that what they have, they truly believe is open. They believe they have reached a place that they can call open. And if you look at it from their perspective, you might be able to see why they have come to that conclusion. They're wrong, in every conceivable sense, but you can at least see why they have the position they do.
Openness is not a state they understand. It is one that we chose not to embrace at the present time in strict deed, but I would argue that even our closed state is more open than their self-anointed 'open state' and that when a final point of judgement is made, when history looks back on us, our (Nao and myself) calls for openness and the apparent discrepancy with our own actions (the apparent hypocrisy of calling for openness when being closed ourselves), I believe that our decision will ultimately be vindicated.
Arantor remembers the troll last summer that I refused to ban, on the grounds that despite his insults, he had a point of sorts and a valid opinion.
It's late and I'm pontificating, but I think you're largely preaching to the converted. We know their definition of openness is a bit skewed, as is their definition of compromise. Their institution is damaged, warped, yes. Unfixable? I don't know. It feels like it might as well be.