Marcello Perathoner wrote:
Lee Passey wrote:
What would be even better would be a free, open-source, cross-platform User Agent which is _not_ encumbered by the GPL.
I like it better "encumbered" so nobody can take the source, add some proprietary tags and take over the standard.
I understand. There are some people who just can't stand the thought of giving up control. GPLed software is free in the sense of free beer, but not free in the sense of free speech. I need not pay anyone to acquire it, but I can't use it freely; specifically, I cannot combine it with non-free software and charge for the non-free portions. Usually when I point this out, the response is "nobody is _requiring_ you to use GPL code. If you don't like the restrictions, don't use the code." This statement is true enough, and is what I do (when looking for source code I first look at the license, and if it is GPL I move on without considering it further; and while I contribute to several open-source projects I do _not_ contribute to GPLed projects) -- but again it is a red herring. It is a distraction from the central issue, which is that GPLed software is _not_ freely usable, whatever its proponents may claim. And the success of such non-GPLed open source projects such as Apache and Mozilla indicates that the GPL probably isn't even necessary to accomplish the FSF's goals.
Of course, nowhere does OpenReader propose a commercial application (although it does not forclose the possibility), so any mention of a commercial app here is a bit of a red herring.
Proposing a standard without proof of implementability is a red herring.
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (2000): RED HERRING: noun: 1. A smoked herring having a reddish color. 2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue. ETYMOLOGY: From its use to distract hunting dogs from the trail. STANDARD: noun: ... 5. Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence... PROPOSE: transitive verb: 1. To put forward for consideration, discussion, or adoption; suggest: So... The original post announced that at least one commercial organization is committed to adopting the proposed OpenReader standard. That announcement did nothing to minimize OpenReader's own commitment to fostering development of a truly free, open-source, cross-platform User Agent which would also support the OpenReader format. Perceptions as to what may be required for a commercial company to create an OpenReader-compatible User Agent may be interesting (at least _I_ find it interesting) but in the context of the press release it _is_ a bit of a red herring. On the other hand, proposing a standard a standard without first proving that it implementable (and I suppose the best proof of implementability [sic] is an actual implementation), whatever else it may be, is _not_ a red herring, because proposing a standard is not a distraction from the central issue, at least not without having a context so we know what the central issue is.
Wanting to see at least one implementation before adopting a standard is just common sense.
What you are suggesting here is a recipe for inaction. The OpenReader format can hardly be called a standard, as widespread recognition, adoption, and employment is still a way off, but _proposals_ must always precede adoption. If no one adopts a proposal until someone else does it first, no proposal will _ever_ be adopted. OpenReader has created a specification, and proposed that it should become a standard. The exact parameters of that specification are not yet decided, and are being discussed even now on the OpenReader-Format mailing list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openreader-format/). If companies and organizations adopt the specification (as OSoft has done) it may well become a standard. As there are no implementations, it would certainly be a misuse of the language to claim that the OpenReader format already _is_ a standard, but it is certainly not a misuse of the language to state that it is a _proposed_ standard even without implementations. The question as to whether or not the OpenReader format will ever become a standard is a judgment based on a number of factors; waiting for wide spread adoption is a slam-dunk way of making that judgment (essentially agreeing with what has become common knowledge), but it is not the only way, and is not even the most common-sensical approach. The question as to whether or not the OpenReader format _should_ become a standard is a more interesting question, and for those who have concluded that it should, what can be done to _help_ it become a standard is even more interesting.