For the purposes of having something to point to in future, here’s a list of different meanings of “open” that I’ve encountered.
XYZ is “open” because:
- It’s on the web
- It’s free to use
- It’s published under an open licence
- It’s published under a custom licence, which limits some types of use (usually commercial, often everything except personal)
- It’s published under an open licence, but we’ve not checked too deeply in whether we can do that
- It’s free to use, so long as you do so within our app or application
- There’s a restricted/limited access free version
- There’s documentation on how it works
- It was (or is) being made in public, with equal participation by anyone
- It was (or is) being made in public, lead by a consortium or group that has limitation on membership (even if just fees)
- It was (or is) being made privately, but the results are then being made available publicly for you to use
I gather that at IODC “open washing” was a frequently referenced topic. It’s not surprising given the variety of ways in which the word “open” is used. Many of which are not open at all. And the list I’ve given above is hardly comprehensive. This is why the Open Definition is such an important reference. Even if it may have it’s faults.
Depending on your needs, any or all of those definitions might be fine. But “open” for you, may not be “open” for everyone. So let’s not lose sight of the goal and keep checking that we’re using that word correctly.
And, importantly, if we’re really making things open to make them better, then we might need to more open to collaboration. Open isn’t entirely about licensing either.
Lost Boy 