On 19-Jul-2006, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
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'.
First advice: don't have "non-controversial" as a goal, or you will fail. The very idea of freedom in software is controversial, so you must enter any effort acknowledging this.
As for a suggested term: I find it descriptive to discuss "open, freely-implementable standard". That at least is more precise, and leaves the option open to talk about free software implementations of the standard.
Free standard is not good: I don't think it's savvy to replicate the fight between 'open' and 'free'.
That fight exists only to the extent that the *concept* of freedom in software has been corrupted by other forces. You can't avoid that conflict by choosing some other term, except by avoiding the concept of freedom altogether. You can prepare your responses in advance, though, which helps.
- 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'?
Precision is good. Low ambiguoty is good. Non-controversial is only possible to the extent that the discussion of freedom in software is non-controversial.