Levels of Openness - Revision history

Marcin: /* Open Source and Collaborative */

2025-04-23T05:16:51Z

Open Source and Collaborative

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:16, 23 April 2025
Line 21:		Line 21:
	At OSE, we emphasize the [[Distinction Between Collaborative and Open]] - and believe that 'collaborative and open' - is even more radical than libre. Libre is generally considered the 'fundamentalist' version of 'open source,' and open source is for sale in the negative sense of the term.		At OSE, we emphasize the [[Distinction Between Collaborative and Open]] - and believe that 'collaborative and open' - is even more radical than libre. Libre is generally considered the 'fundamentalist' version of 'open source,' and open source is for sale in the negative sense of the term.

			We believe that the highest good in terms of creating a better world - an in fact in terms of the evolution of humanity - is open, collaborative development. Meaning both open in the open source economic sense, and collaborative in the social sense.

	==Libre==		==Libre==

Marcin: /* Libre */

2025-04-23T05:15:24Z

Libre

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 23 April 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:
	We can all start by recognizing that open source, in its definition, means economic freedom. Any freedomfighter thus must endorse open source, by definition.		We can all start by recognizing that open source, in its definition, means economic freedom. Any freedomfighter thus must endorse open source, by definition.

			==Open Source and Collaborative==
			At OSE, we emphasize the [[Distinction Between Collaborative and Open]] - and believe that 'collaborative and open' - is even more radical than libre. Libre is generally considered the 'fundamentalist' version of 'open source,' and open source is for sale in the negative sense of the term.



	==Libre==		==Libre==
	[[Libre]] refers to the purist or radical version of open source. However, it does not mean that libre is necessarily collaborative in the sense of OSE collaboration - see distinction at [[Collaborative and Open]]		[[Libre]] refers to the purist or radical version of open source. However, it does not mean that libre is necessarily collaborative in the sense of OSE collaboration - see distinction at [[Collaborative and Open]]

Marcin: /* Libre */

2025-04-23T05:11:26Z

Libre

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:11, 23 April 2025
Line 19:		Line 19:

	==Libre==		==Libre==
	[[Libre]] refers to the purist version of open source.		[[Libre]] refers to the purist or radical version of open source. However, it does not mean that libre is necessarily collaborative in the sense of OSE collaboration - see distinction at [[Collaborative and Open]]

	==Open Source==		==Open Source==

Marcin: /* Open Source */

2025-04-23T05:07:38Z

Open Source

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:07, 23 April 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:
	We can all start by recognizing that open source, in its definition, means economic freedom. Any freedomfighter thus must endorse open source, by definition.		We can all start by recognizing that open source, in its definition, means economic freedom. Any freedomfighter thus must endorse open source, by definition.

			==Libre==
			[[Libre]] refers to the purist version of open source.

	==Open Source==		==Open Source==
	#Open Source - meaning complying with the [[OSHWA Definition]] or [[DIN SPEC 3105]]. The best-in-class example here is [[Lulzbot]] up to the end of 2019 (until it got acquired) - which shares all of its CAD designs and production engineering in open formats. (we cannot tell what will happen after its end-of-2019 acquisition by another company).		#Open Source - meaning complying with the [[OSHWA Definition]] or [[DIN SPEC 3105]]. The best-in-class example here is [[Lulzbot]] up to the end of 2019 (until it got acquired) - which shares all of its CAD designs and production engineering in open formats. (we cannot tell what will happen after its end-of-2019 acquisition by another company).

Marcin: /* Fake Open Source */

2023-06-17T20:43:14Z

Fake Open Source

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 17 June 2023
Line 31:		Line 31:
	#Fake Open Source - pretending to be open source, but the license in not open - typically being non-commercial. Note that not all Creative Commons licenses are OSHWA Definition-compliant. According to this definition, the [[Peer Production License]] is fake open source. The word 'fake' refers specifically to the appearance of openness - an impostor open source - where in reality the subject matter is not open source. This is a violation of [[General Semantics]] - where the 'map is not the territory' - in the [[Post-Truth Era]]. Just because something ''appears to be'' - does not mean that it ''is''.		#Fake Open Source - pretending to be open source, but the license in not open - typically being non-commercial. Note that not all Creative Commons licenses are OSHWA Definition-compliant. According to this definition, the [[Peer Production License]] is fake open source. The word 'fake' refers specifically to the appearance of openness - an impostor open source - where in reality the subject matter is not open source. This is a violation of [[General Semantics]] - where the 'map is not the territory' - in the [[Post-Truth Era]]. Just because something ''appears to be'' - does not mean that it ''is''.
	#Effectively Fake Open Source - this is not necessarily a slander, but would apply to projects where full documentation is available to the OSHWA standard. However, if the build requires very expensive equipment, rare inputs, extensive skill sets - that very few or no other people can access - then the design is effectively un-replicable - and from the standpoint of replicability - unreplicable open source. Which is effectively not open for replication. Thus, it is ambiguous whether the people who are offering the blueprints are really following a mindset of open culture - or they are simply being strategic. It may be either honest - in that resources did not allow full documentation to be published (we know that documentation takes time) - or delusive - if the company is leveraging open source more for marketing than allowing others to replicate. However, there is hope in the projects that simply do not have the energy to document - but would be completely willing to do so. Such projects should be sought as collaborators.		#Effectively Fake Open Source - this is not necessarily a slander, but would apply to projects where full documentation is available to the OSHWA standard. However, if the build requires very expensive equipment, rare inputs, extensive skill sets - that very few or no other people can access - then the design is effectively un-replicable - and from the standpoint of replicability - unreplicable open source. Which is effectively not open for replication. Thus, it is ambiguous whether the people who are offering the blueprints are really following a mindset of open culture - or they are simply being strategic. It may be either honest - in that resources did not allow full documentation to be published (we know that documentation takes time) - or delusive - if the company is leveraging open source more for marketing than allowing others to replicate. However, there is hope in the projects that simply do not have the energy to document - but would be completely willing to do so. Such projects should be sought as collaborators.

			See [[Fake Open Source Examples]].

	==Strategic Open Source==		==Strategic Open Source==

Marcin: /* Strategic Open Source */

2023-06-12T20:18:57Z

Strategic Open Source

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 12 June 2023
Line 37:		Line 37:

	See an example of strategic open source from OSE's experiences with [[Discourse]] forum software: [[Discourse#Strategic_Open_Source]]. This example appears particularly eggregious, in that the Discourse dev team _deliberately_ deleted useful documentation from their forum, which was otherwise undocumented, after OSE ([[Michael Altfield]]) spent the time posting it. Fortunately, we copied the documentation to a safe location before the post was deleted. This is a good example that some 'open source' projects violently reject open culture on business grounds. In our book, this is not part of the [[Economy of Affection]] that OSE promotes.		See an example of strategic open source from OSE's experiences with [[Discourse]] forum software: [[Discourse#Strategic_Open_Source]]. This example appears particularly eggregious, in that the Discourse dev team _deliberately_ deleted useful documentation from their forum, which was otherwise undocumented, after OSE ([[Michael Altfield]]) spent the time posting it. Fortunately, we copied the documentation to a safe location before the post was deleted. This is a good example that some 'open source' projects violently reject open culture on business grounds. In our book, this is not part of the [[Economy of Affection]] that OSE promotes.

			See also [[Strategic Culture]] - the very antithesis of the values that OSE stands for.

	==Useful Open Source==		==Useful Open Source==

Marcin: /* Open Source */

2022-07-07T17:18:42Z

Open Source

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 7 July 2022
Line 20:		Line 20:
	==Open Source==		==Open Source==
	#Open Source - meaning complying with the [[OSHWA Definition]] or [[DIN SPEC 3105]]. The best-in-class example here is [[Lulzbot]] up to the end of 2019 (until it got acquired) - which shares all of its CAD designs and production engineering in open formats. (we cannot tell what will happen after its end-of-2019 acquisition by another company).		#Open Source - meaning complying with the [[OSHWA Definition]] or [[DIN SPEC 3105]]. The best-in-class example here is [[Lulzbot]] up to the end of 2019 (until it got acquired) - which shares all of its CAD designs and production engineering in open formats. (we cannot tell what will happen after its end-of-2019 acquisition by another company).
	#Even further than open source is [[Public Production Engineering]]. Open projects are nice, but without documenting the methods of how to produce the products, it may not be easy to replicate a viable enterprise. And thus - the project cannot be said to produce open source product a la [[Distributive Enterprise]]. Yet it is the ability to produce economically significant products - that is the greatest transformative potential of open source philosophy. This philosophy has not yet been tapped in hardware, and it has been coopted in software. See [[The Success of Open Source]] (software). See [[The Failure of Open Source]].		#Even further than open source is [[Public Production Engineering]] and open enterprise blueprints. Open projects are nice, but without documenting the methods of how to produce the products, it may not be easy to replicate a viable enterprise. And thus - the project cannot be said to produce open source product a la [[Distributive Enterprise]]. Yet it is the ability to produce economically significant products - that is the greatest transformative potential of open source philosophy. This philosophy has not yet been tapped in hardware, and it has been coopted in software. See [[The Success of Open Source]] (software). See [[The Failure of Open Source]].

	==Undocumented Open Source==		==Undocumented Open Source==

Marcin: /* Examples */

2022-04-28T13:01:35Z

Examples

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:01, 28 April 2022
Line 67:		Line 67:
	* Microsoft has an "Open Source" license for their proprietary flagship product, Windows. It reads, "Pay us USD 1m per year, and on receipt of your money, our source code is "open" to you. If however you do anything other than read it, we will sue you into the bedrock and jump up and down in the molten crater of your former existence". But The Source Is Open! {{ref}}.		* Microsoft has an "Open Source" license for their proprietary flagship product, Windows. It reads, "Pay us USD 1m per year, and on receipt of your money, our source code is "open" to you. If however you do anything other than read it, we will sue you into the bedrock and jump up and down in the molten crater of your former existence". But The Source Is Open! {{ref}}.
	*[[n55]] - bicycle license is also NC		*[[n55]] - bicycle license is also NC
	*[[Tesla Motors]] - what does it mean that they are 'releasing their patents as open source?' Unless the designs are available under an OSHWA compliant license, they are not open source. Point: patents do not reveal the actual blueprints. However, we must give credit to Musk as his move ''appears'' honorable. He promises not to sue anyone for using Tesla patents. The true intent here is unknown, as the Tesla 'open source' may be pure marketing - and likely is pure marketing - if we assume that Musk is a smart guy who understands the open source definition - in which case he is acting contrary to the open source hardware definition.		*[[Tesla Motors]] - what does it mean that they are 'releasing their patents as open source?' Unless the designs are available under an OSHWA compliant license, they are not open source. Point: patents do not reveal the actual blueprints. However, we must give credit to Musk as his move ''appears'' honorable. He promises not to sue anyone for using Tesla patents. The true intent here is unknown, as the Tesla 'open source' may be pure marketing - and likely is pure marketing - if we assume that Musk is a smart guy who understands the open source definition - in which case he is acting contrary to the open source hardware definition. The practical consideration is - unless you have the production knowhow of Tesla - open source blueprints (even if they existed) - do not lead to commercial success - unless the production engineering blueprints are open as well.
	*[[MPCNC]] - nice discussion at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ohaPYyiDA		*[[MPCNC]] - nice discussion at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ohaPYyiDA
	[[Category:Open Source Standards]]		[[Category:Open Source Standards]]

Marcin: /* Examples */

2022-04-28T13:00:17Z

Examples

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:00, 28 April 2022
Line 63:		Line 63:

	=Examples=		=Examples=
	*[[OpenROV]] - not open source, as it doesn't meet the OSHWA Definition as their hardware has the NC Clause.		*[[OpenROV]] - not open source, as it doesn't meet the OSHWA Definition as their hardware has the NC Clause. (Specifically referring to OpenROV around 2012 - not sure how it evolved since then - MJ 2022 note)
	*[[Peer Production License]] - nuisance from the OSE perspective, as it claims to be inventing new ways of openness while not allowing economic freedom, or allowing 'partial' economic freedom. Ie, they do not require open source-compliant licensing. It's a contradiction in terms. Their positioning would be sound if they stated explicitly that they do not endorse the kind of economic freedom that open source affords in its definition.		*[[Peer Production License]] - nuisance from the OSE perspective, as it claims to be inventing new ways of openness while not allowing economic freedom, or allowing 'partial' economic freedom. Ie, they do not require open source-compliant licensing. It's a contradiction in terms. Their positioning would be sound if they stated explicitly that they do not endorse the kind of economic freedom that open source affords in its definition.
	* Microsoft has an "Open Source" license for their proprietary flagship product, Windows. It reads, "Pay us USD 1m per year, and on receipt of your money, our source code is "open" to you. If however you do anything other than read it, we will sue you into the bedrock and jump up and down in the molten crater of your former existence". But The Source Is Open! {{ref}}.		* Microsoft has an "Open Source" license for their proprietary flagship product, Windows. It reads, "Pay us USD 1m per year, and on receipt of your money, our source code is "open" to you. If however you do anything other than read it, we will sue you into the bedrock and jump up and down in the molten crater of your former existence". But The Source Is Open! {{ref}}.

Eric: Added a Category to the Page

2021-04-11T04:52:16Z

Added a Category to the Page

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:52, 11 April 2021
Line 141:		Line 141:
	*Read more about [[Why OSE Doesn't Support the Use of Creative Commons Non-Commercial Licenses]]		*Read more about [[Why OSE Doesn't Support the Use of Creative Commons Non-Commercial Licenses]]

	[[Category: Guiding philosophies]] [[Category: Jargon]]		[[Category: Guiding philosophies]] [[Category: Abbreviations, Jargon, and Terminology]]