Hi,
Stefano Maffulli ha scritto:
Now, since I am summarizing in this paper what defines a standard that is implementable in Free Software, it would be nice to propose also a term that is non controversial like 'open standard'.
[...]
- does it make sense to introduce in the Free Software community a new
term that is non-controversial and more precise than the generic 'open standard'?
Since the paper will try to define another idea of 'standard', that is: that standard which can be implemented within the Free Software and therefore compatible with certain kind of licences (such as GPL), yes i believe that not only it makes sense to introduce another term, but it is *necessary*.
'Open standard' *already* refers to a set of standards that, in some cases, would not be compatible with FS. Using that same name to point to another concept (i.e: only those standard which have full compatibility with FS), will necessarily lead to confusion and misunderstanding.
- if yes, what would that term be?
Considering that the adjective 'open' is already used in 'open standard', i would avoid to restrict that adjective adding more ones to it: we would end up having not an *appropriate name* but a *descriptive* term, and since descriptive names are not real names they are very prone to be shortened by common and daily usage.
To conclude, i would suggest to take some distances from the 'open'/'free' terminology and use a new term, something like: fair standard community standard transparent standard bright standard or something like that, i don't have lot of imagination, but i hope i explained what i meant :P
Greetings, Giacomo