Comments on: The Foundations of Openness http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/ ... taking over the world like we always do! Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:35:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1-alpha-10188 hourly 1 By: greebo http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/comment-page-1/#comment-1004 greebo Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:31:55 +0000 http://pipka.org/?p=612#comment-1004 Thank you everyone for your comments, I hope this is proving to be useful and that people build upon it. I'll be revisiting everyone's work in a few months when some major projects I'm working on calm down. Thank you everyone for your comments, I hope this is proving to be useful and that people build upon it. I’ll be revisiting everyone’s work in a few months when some major projects I’m working on calm down.

]]> By: Benjamin Mako Hill http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/comment-page-1/#comment-1003 Benjamin Mako Hill Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:59:44 +0000 http://pipka.org/?p=612#comment-1003 I finally got a chance to look over this closeliy and I really like it! Great work Pia! I finally got a chance to look over this closeliy and I really like it! Great work Pia!

]]> By: Tel http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/comment-page-1/#comment-932 Tel Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:23:33 +0000 http://pipka.org/?p=612#comment-932 With regards to the voting system, many people are working on the idea of a cryptographic system that is provably correct regardless of the contents of the black box that generates the outcome (at least provable to some probability, someone can always guess the keys). If such a system really exists, then Open Source won't really matter in voting systems because multiple parties will be able to check the outcome in multiple ways and detect election fraud. Also, from the general public perception, they don't have the ability to check source code for correctness, but they don't have the ability to check a cryptographic interlock for correctness either so they are SOL under both systems. The only thing that the broader public can understand and reliably scrutinize is paper ballots. As a general principle I do agree that it is easier to trust something when you can check through the innards and see how it works. With regards to the voting system, many people are working on the idea of a cryptographic system that is provably correct regardless of the contents of the black box that generates the outcome (at least provable to some probability, someone can always guess the keys). If such a system really exists, then Open Source won’t really matter in voting systems because multiple parties will be able to check the outcome in multiple ways and detect election fraud.

Also, from the general public perception, they don’t have the ability to check source code for correctness, but they don’t have the ability to check a cryptographic interlock for correctness either so they are SOL under both systems. The only thing that the broader public can understand and reliably scrutinize is paper ballots.

As a general principle I do agree that it is easier to trust something when you can check through the innards and see how it works.

]]> By: Francois Druel http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/comment-page-1/#comment-923 Francois Druel Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:25:42 +0000 http://pipka.org/?p=612#comment-923 Hello all, I read this work with interest because I published a PhD thesis on the same subject in november 2007 ! Please visit http://www.druel.com/francois to download my work. I am open to any contribution on the subject Cheers, Francois ---- Bonjour à toutes et à tous, Je lis ce document avec intérêt car j'ai soutenu une thèse sur un sujet équivalent en novembre 2007. N'hésitez pas à visiter mon site : http://www.druel.com/francois pour télécharger mon travail. Je suis ouvert à toute contribution sur le sujet Cordialement Francois Hello all,

I read this work with interest because I published a PhD thesis on the same subject in november 2007 !

Please visit http://www.druel.com/francois to download my work.

I am open to any contribution on the subject

Cheers,

Francois

—-
Bonjour à toutes et à tous,

Je lis ce document avec intérêt car j’ai soutenu une thèse sur un sujet équivalent en novembre 2007.

N’hésitez pas à visiter mon site : http://www.druel.com/francois pour télécharger mon travail.

Je suis ouvert à toute contribution sur le sujet

Cordialement

Francois

]]> By: http://marty.sunriseroad.net/ http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/comment-page-1/#comment-922 http://marty.sunriseroad.net/ Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:28:08 +0000 http://pipka.org/?p=612#comment-922 Wow, this looks great - well done. One question though is that while I concur that being able to openly market open-source software is an important measure of openness, I'm not convinced all your questions actually point that way. Questions 4,6 and 7 in my mind measure how likely the product will be successful in the market , not how open it plays in the market. I think important questions for this criteria would be around are their trademarks or trade name restrictions around the product. (For instance I believe Mozilla's Firefox logo has quite a restrictive license). Also while you mention patents elsewhere, you seem to ask mainly about known patents. Risk of a software infringing on possible submarine or otherwise unknown patents needs to be mitigated through investigation in order to make sure it can participate only in the market. But again Pia, this looks to be a very useful paper! Wow, this looks great - well done. One question though is that while I concur that being able to openly market open-source software is an important measure of openness, I’m not convinced all your questions actually point that way. Questions 4,6 and 7 in my mind measure how likely the product will be successful in the market , not how open it plays in the market. I think important questions for this criteria would be around are their trademarks or trade name restrictions around the product. (For instance I believe Mozilla’s Firefox logo has quite a restrictive license). Also while you mention patents elsewhere, you seem to ask mainly about known patents. Risk of a software infringing on possible submarine or otherwise unknown patents needs to be mitigated through investigation in order to make sure it can participate only in the market.

But again Pia, this looks to be a very useful paper!

]]> By: Fred http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/comment-page-1/#comment-921 Fred Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:30:52 +0000 http://pipka.org/?p=612#comment-921 Had similar problems as Mary as well as your table breaking our Planet layout (and yours). I have temporarily removed your feed from Planet BLUG and hope you can fix the issue quickly. Don't punish our readers for too long ;) Thanks Had similar problems as Mary as well as your table breaking our Planet layout (and yours). I have temporarily removed your feed from Planet BLUG and hope you can fix the issue quickly. Don’t punish our readers for too long ;)

Thanks

]]> By: Russell Coker http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/comment-page-1/#comment-920 Russell Coker Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:34:48 +0000 http://pipka.org/?p=612#comment-920 One thing I forgot to mention, I publish my papers on http://doc.coker.com.au/ not my regular blog. I announce them on my blog, mailing lists, etc when appropriate. I don't prevent or discourage people from subscribing to the RSS feed of my documents blog, but I don't really encourage it either. I mostly use it as a CMS with comments facility. I probably wouldn't use Wordpress for publishing papers if I didn't already use it a lot (so it's easier to have one more installation of Wordpress than to learn and support something else). One thing I forgot to mention, I publish my papers on http://doc.coker.com.au/ not my regular blog. I announce them on my blog, mailing lists, etc when appropriate.

I don’t prevent or discourage people from subscribing to the RSS feed of my documents blog, but I don’t really encourage it either. I mostly use it as a CMS with comments facility. I probably wouldn’t use Wordpress for publishing papers if I didn’t already use it a lot (so it’s easier to have one more installation of Wordpress than to learn and support something else).

]]> By: Russell Coker http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/comment-page-1/#comment-919 Russell Coker Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:30:21 +0000 http://pipka.org/?p=612#comment-919 Not sure if this is Pia's problem, but in Wordpress 2.5 I found that my MORE tags were not being respected, Wordpress was giving full feeds of posts even when I explicitly instructed it to only give part of the post in the RSS feeds. I have not yet tested Wordpress 2.6 to see if it has the same problem. One thing I am considering is to instruct Wordpress to truncate all my posts but have a large truncation limit (maybe 1000 words). Then most of my posts will fall below the limit, but any which are above it get truncated - this will also catch cases where I forget to insert a MORE tag. Incidentally it's a pity that the truncation code of Wordpress doesn't have an option for what percentage of the post may be after the truncation. Sometimes I see posts truncated at 300 words when the entire post is 310 words, that's just annoying for everyone. I'd like to say "truncate at 1000 words if the post is more than 1200 words" or similar. Not sure if this is Pia’s problem, but in Wordpress 2.5 I found that my MORE tags were not being respected, Wordpress was giving full feeds of posts even when I explicitly instructed it to only give part of the post in the RSS feeds. I have not yet tested Wordpress 2.6 to see if it has the same problem.

One thing I am considering is to instruct Wordpress to truncate all my posts but have a large truncation limit (maybe 1000 words). Then most of my posts will fall below the limit, but any which are above it get truncated - this will also catch cases where I forget to insert a MORE tag.

Incidentally it’s a pity that the truncation code of Wordpress doesn’t have an option for what percentage of the post may be after the truncation. Sometimes I see posts truncated at 300 words when the entire post is 310 words, that’s just annoying for everyone.

I’d like to say “truncate at 1000 words if the post is more than 1200 words” or similar.

]]> By: Mary http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/comment-page-1/#comment-917 Mary Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:27:57 +0000 http://pipka.org/?p=612#comment-917 Holy moly Pia. I'm really interested to read this and will get to it soon and leave a more interesting comment. Would it be possible to install http://coffee2code.com/wp-plugins/hide-or-cut-post-text/ or similar so that the whole thing doesn't show up in Planets? It's approaching 30 screenfuls. Holy moly Pia. I’m really interested to read this and will get to it soon and leave a more interesting comment.

Would it be possible to install http://coffee2code.com/wp-plugins/hide-or-cut-post-text/ or similar so that the whole thing doesn’t show up in Planets? It’s approaching 30 screenfuls.

]]> By: Ross Gardler http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/comment-page-1/#comment-916 Ross Gardler Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:09:32 +0000 http://pipka.org/?p=612#comment-916 Thanks for carrying this work on Pia. I think this is a good starting point, but feel that in its current form t is not entirely useful. However, as we have discussed to evaluate its usefullness we need data to play with. My main concern is focussed on the fact that a definition of openness is almost impossible to agree on. We really need to allow people to weight results so that they can evaluate openness with respect to their own needs. For example, some people will claim that a copyleft licence results in a more open project, whilst others will claim a permissive licence is what is needed. With a weighting system we would be able to allow individuals to indicate what is the most important for them. However, before moving on with this work we need data to play with. This will allow us to experiment with a weighting system. Thanks for carrying this work on Pia. I think this is a good starting point, but feel that in its current form t is not entirely useful. However, as we have discussed to evaluate its usefullness we need data to play with.

My main concern is focussed on the fact that a definition of openness is almost impossible to agree on. We really need to allow people to weight results so that they can evaluate openness with respect to their own needs. For example, some people will claim that a copyleft licence results in a more open project, whilst others will claim a permissive licence is what is needed. With a weighting system we would be able to allow individuals to indicate what is the most important for them.

However, before moving on with this work we need data to play with. This will allow us to experiment with a weighting system.

]]>