Open (was RE: That's all folks!)

The "That's all folks!" thread has got to be hitting some kind of record
for the longest thread on midrange-l...

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 jeff_carey@baxter.com wrote:

> As an OS/400 person, I'm a bit confused about this "open" and "free" OS
> thing.  If I buy a Unix box, I don't have to buy the OS license and
> support from the vendor?  I can buy a Sun box and just load a downloaded
> copy of Unix on it?
>
> And if it is truly open, then what do I do when I need support?  Is that
> free?  What sort of testing standards are there for this open code?

So let's define terms then, as there is some question.  How about the
following definitions:

An Open System may be considered open if it has any of the following:

1.  open and free (as in freedom) access to the source.  Examples of this
include linux and freebsd.

2.  adheres to open standards for accessing the data stored on the system.
Examples of this are communication methods as defined in the various RFCs
and saving documents in XML format a la StarOffice.

Conversely a proprietary system is closed if it does not meet both of the
above qualifications.

Note that you don't have to have your system to be open source (i.e.
licensed under an open source license such as the GPL, BSD, Mozilla, etc.)
in order for it to qualify as an Open System.  If your system meets
criteria 2 for all it data storage then it is an Open System.

Note also that if you meet criteria 1 you also necessarily meet criteria 2
since you can't hide the data storage definitions if your code is
available.

Windows is closed because it does not meet criteria 2 for all its data
storage.  StarOffice is open because it meets criteria 2.

What do people think of these definitions?  Can a better discussion
continue with the terms defined?

James Rich