This is so goddamn true.
Bear in mind, the difference is that monopolies happen, and even if not, some dude always can break interoperability or the #API, or just turn the service OFF.
Progress? 
HT @kelseyhightower @kinlane @aral #SOA #standardshttps://twitter.com/kelseyhightower/status/1029830938698571776 …
-
-
I dunno, Tim's just a hooked-up tech writer who successfully became a publisher and conference impresario for moneyed parts of the "open" crowd. Our lack of a consensual definition of "open" runs a lot deeper than one Ivy League dude selling code books with cute animal covers.
-
Yeah, we mistake open as in an open door (which can be closed and locked on the whim of the owner) with open as in an open field that belongs to the commons and cannot legally be enclosed. Right of access isn’t the differentiator, ownership & control is.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Security people are slowly getting better at tracing their vulnerability issues, all the way through multi-part systems and connections, to confirm that yes, those widgets together really are secure, all the way thru. But we're not as good with "open" as we are with "secure."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also, absolutism isn't always necessary to achieve open policy purposes. Early in the GPL's socialization, Eben Moglen very helpfully pointed out that GPL and proprietary systems can very happily sit NEXT to each other, and interop, without catching legal cooties from each other.
-
Yes, mandating interoperability (and other regulation) is key if the ethical alternatives are to have a chance.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.