Sökformulär

But then, basically, I think Kroes changed her definition of openness (I didn't follow this exactly because I guess my level of understanding was too low at the time) in a way that was unsatisfactory to many. Also, her subsequent speeches have made more references to interoperability than openness of standards. I do see your point about the development process having to be open. That would solve any problems of a non-open standard being in an application process while closed. My initial question was, I think, made under the assumption that a standard could theoretically be opened up after the decision of the standardization was approved.

There are an awful lot of references to the ITU in most telecommunications standards though, like wireless, mobile phone and general telephony/broadband infrastructure things.So presuming that there is an ITU standard which is not open, could a similar (interoperable) standard be developed by an overly governed institution like IETF without the world falling apart? I guess it's not in anyone's interest to do that though.

I think the alternative to Facebook is Diaspora, but Diaspora has as well been criticized for license terms. I didn't read them, but they couldn't possibly be worse than the license terms for most gaming consoles (that apply to hardware, even!).